Posted on 10/23/2008 10:00:19 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Proposition 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment
Proposition 8 places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.
About Proposition 8
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
Sounds like he's on both sides of the issue.
I’m doing what I can. I just finished making canvassing calls for Prop 8 and will do more tomorrow and Saturday. My husband and I contributed a substantial sum to the ProtectMarriage Campaign and I had a column on Proposition 8 published in the local paper in our 85k community. I am heartened that it appears the proposition will pass, although I know it will be immediately challenged in court. It may seem like we’re only plugging a finger in a failing dike (no, I don’t mean dyke) but it is time for moral people to stand up and be counted.
I put up my lawn sign & telling every one to vote for it! We will clobber them!
Many of us were lining up the street holding Yes on 8 signs, people honking us.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The challenge won’t be fraud or any such thing. It is likely to be that the matter cannot be properly decided by majority vote and should never have been allowed to voting. The gays tried to keep this from ever making it to the ballot this tme by arguing that marriage was a basic constitutional right not susceptible to democratic processes. The court refused to buy that argument to halt the proposition process but that doesn’t mean a court won’t see it their way in the future. We should expect lots of challenges regardless of how far the margin of approval is in November. Unfortunately.
I think it’ll pass as well. I am so proud of the churches in California...they took alot of crap this year because of this. But you do what is right...
I’m glad to see all the various faiths cooperating on this. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Muslim groups were also cooperating in a low-profile way. This court ruling threatens all groups who believe marriage is sacred and important to maintain.
Get er’ done, Cal Freepers!
Amazing that the opposition if fighting so dirty. My neighbor’s sign down the street (they live where alot of traffic goes by) went missing after one day. And my friend’s 78-year-old mother had her sign slashed on her front lawn. She said, “Now who would do a thing like that?” in a very sweet way. It is beyond her that anyone wouldn’t completely support traditional marriage. I know these are typical leftist tactics, but it angers me to no end that someone would vandalize an elderly lady’s sign. It just tells you what we are up against.
That has to be the most convoluted argument I’ve ever heard. Is there even anything in California case law that supports that argument?
On the federal level, it seems clear to me that even something as fundamental as the freedom of speech could be removed if done through the amendment process.
To make my point perfectly clear, it’s always been my understanding that the entire point of a process that changes a constitution is to, well, make changes to a constitution. Through the federal Amendment process, it’d be perfectly OK to get rid of the judicial branch, declare that all people shall wear pink on Fridays, etc.
The ONLY way that I could see the California Supreme Court reasonably overturning this state constitutional change would be to declare it in violation of the federal Constitution. Of course, that would immediately result in an appeal to the SCOTUS, but it’s the only argument that even makes sense to me. (Of course, I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s something that doesn’t come from the Twilight Zone like the argument you say they are going to push.)
I would almost guarantee that every FREEPER on here supports this measure. Although it is nice to make the press.
I understand your frustration but my argument isn’t really from the Twilight Zone. I would expect the challenge to take the position that marriage is a basic constitutional right grounded in the U.S. Constitution perhaps in the “privacy penumbra” discovered there in Roe v. Wade. The argument will be that the California Constitution cannot take away a federally-recognized constitutional right. While we might be able to tinker with the federal constitution, state constitutions cannot deny to its citizens federal rights. I think this is part of why we fought the Civil War. So if the gays can get a federal court to rule that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal constitution, then it can get the California Constitution overruled.
The Constitutional Ammendment process was for two reasons: one was to keep state courts from interpreting the California Constitution to include a right which would now be specifically prohibited. The other was to keep the Assembly from doing its own mischief against any law which had less-than-constitutional status.
I don’t think the federal court is that sympathetic to the argument of the gays at this point but I do think the gays would certainly do everything they could to challenge the law, first through state courts and eventually to the federal level. The opponents of Prop 8 would then argue that a stay on enforcing the new provision could and probably would be put in place by a state court first and then a federal court. This leaves the ruling of the state court granting marriage rights in place, perhaps for years.
Don’t underestimate the creativity of people who want to overrule the will of the people, especially if a certain presidential candidate sympathetic to their cause gets elected. The Supreme Court has been amenable to a lot of Twilight Zone type of arguments over the centuries.
Passing Prop 8 is not an end but a middle point in this struggle. From here on out, the battle will be continuous. When the domestic partnership provisions were pushed on the people, the gays argued it was needed to allow them to visit their dying loved ones in the hospital. It was a sympathetic vote for many. From the time it was passed to this very year, gays have had legislation passed in every session of the Assembly to expand this right to where it is now equal in the state to marriage in all but name. They want the name. They want the argument to push full faith and credit on every state in the union. They want everything marriage has to offer except the true rewards of marriage which is becoming one with your spouse and procreation. They won’t stop until they get everything they want or destroy it for everyone if they can’t get what they want.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Thank you for your service. I wonder if we spoke the other night by phone? lol... someone called the house the other night to encourage us to defend marriage.
Keep fighting the good fight.
btw, I wanted to say how effective the Gavin Nuisance commercials are. He’s irritating eough without looking like he’s drunk on enthusiasm and ‘there’s nothing you can do about it’.. it’s almost like a challenge that HAS to be answered.
Again... thumbs up to you!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Might have been me who called but there are a lot of people calling all over and unless you live in the central valley, it wasn’t me. You would know me by the stumbling, inarticulate way I speak. That’s the reason I hide behind my pen or keyboard: I write a much better than I speak, and that isn’t saying much. ;o)
“I understand your frustration but my argument isn’t really from the Twilight Zone. I would expect the challenge to take the position that marriage is a basic constitutional right grounded in the U.S. Constitution perhaps in the “privacy penumbra” discovered there in Roe v. Wade. The argument will be that the California Constitution cannot take away a federally-recognized constitutional right. While we might be able to tinker with the federal constitution, state constitutions cannot deny to its citizens federal rights.”
I agree with this.
I think we had a misunderstanding. Please read my comment again. I thought you were saying that they would try to get it overturned by the California Supremes on state constitutional grounds, not federal constitutional grounds. State courts often do hold that their state constitutions are more protective of rights than the federal constitution, but I thought it would be odd for gay activists to make the claim that the California constitution, on its own, still prohibited banning gay marriage if Prop 8 were to pass. I realize (and did point out) that a separate argument could be made based on federal constitutional rights that apply to the states due to the 14th Amendment. That argument is the one I meant was somewhat reasonable. It’s the other argument about the state constitution on its own still being able to be construed in a way that requires gay marriage that seemed to me to be from The Twilight Zone. I think the court would be extremely activist if it struck down Proposition 8 without referring to the federal constitution. It’d certainly be unprecedented in many states. That’s why I asked about CA case law.
But all of that is just explanation, because as I said, i think we had a bit of a misunderstanding. We agree that the gay activists’ attack to Prop 8 (assuming it passes) will be based on the federal marriage “right”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.