Posted on 11/05/2008 1:46:32 PM PST by SmithL
the CASU is taking the position that sexual behavior is an immutable trait.
Preference equals protected class.
(do people who have sex with fish count too? an intentional absurdity)
How can a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Wouldn’t that, logically speaking, but calling the Constitution unconstitutional?
Lib thinking is, indeed, a disease.
Which side? I agree, Gays are not a protected class, they have no standing.
However, if CASC tosses a CA Constitutional Amendment on method of adoption, the peoples civil rights may have been infringed by the CASC.
That may give standing. SCOTUS would decide standing, option to review, and result, IF they wish.
Or am I wrong? Is SCOTUS unable to review unconstitutional actions by CA judges, even CASC?
I don't think this kind of question is allowed. Anymore.
This is the real underlying goal of the Gay Lobby. They want to obtain protected class status under the US Constitution as their ultimate goal. If they are afforded that level of protection ever, you would then need to apply Strict Scrutiny to any laws that would have the impact of “discriminating” against gays. Imagine a church trying to refuse to marry gays then! They would most certainly lose their tax exempt status. Gays want to argue that they do not want to force anyone to marry them but they simply want the right. The problem is that if you take their arguments to their natural conclusion you will eventually find yourself at the doorstep of forcing churches to marry them anyway. I’m sorry, but I do not see being gay as a protected class like race.
SCOTUS can only review federal questions. I do not see anything in this that is a federal question. They cannot tell California how to amend their own constitution.
Everytime the voters in CA pass a prop - the ACLU takes it to court the next day and it ends up being overturned.They would probably try to consolidate the challenge along with legal challenges against the measures passed in Florida and Arizona.
SCOTUS can only review federal questions. I do not see anything in this that is a federal question. They cannot tell California how to amend their own constitution.They can invalidate portions of the constitution that conflict with federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. A state constitutional amendment legalizing bigamy would be invalid due to conflict with federal anti-bigamy statutes, for example.
I had to convince my wife about “gay marriage” too. She has a good heart and simply looked at it as a way to make our homosexual friends happy. I needed to show her that the backers of “gay marriage” don’t give a damn about homosexuals’ happiness. Destroying the traditional definition/valuation of marriage is simply the camel’s nose under the tent, just one of the opening wedges of the Gramscian Marxist project of dismantling bourgeois civilization, one brick at a time (to mix my metaphors to the point of meltdown). She finally got it.
they are saying the PROCEDURE was unconstitutional.
Because it is a fundamental right (in the eyes of the CASU) then the LEGSILATURE should have been the ONLY body allowed to put this referendum to the people.
ONLY the elected officials are allowed to put ballot questions before those who elected them.
At some point it does become an exercise in absurdity. The CASU has to decide whether the referendum process has ANY validity.
Exactly, and done by legal trickery.
CA has three special CA Constitutional provisions; referendum, recall and initiative. They are specifically for use when the CA government refuses to execute the will of the people. They specifically bypass the entire government in enacting law or Constitutional Amendments.
Prop 8 Constitutional Amendment was passed by initiative, direct democracy bypassing all CA govt. exactly as the empowering initiative process specifically allowed.
The ACLU says the initiative must have been submitted and passed by the legislature BEFORE being submitted to the electorate. Obviously exactly opposing the reason that the initiative power was placed in the CA Constitution for, so obviously a frivolous claim.
The all queer, all the time CASC might just pull out of some "penumbra" that "obviously that was SUSPOSED to be in there, but because someone forgot to write it in, we will, now."
Bingo the Constitutional Amendment is "unconstitutional", and who can make CASC do the right thing? Right, only SCOTUS, if they wish.
BKmark for later thanks
"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
How the F*** do you declare a constitutional amendment "unconstitutional (the only measure by which they could "sue to block it"?
Okay, he’s got a ring on his left hand; who’s he married to?
WRONG
Bill Ayers was an admitted Communist buttboy. They engaged in sex positive bisexuality because they wanted to smash the institution of marriage.
No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen
He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.
It isn't about being accepted. It is about subverting the culture.
Just in case ANYBODY was wonderin....Vallejo, the town declaring bankruptcy? Is in Solano County.
“Its tyranny over the people. I wish people would see it for what it is.”
Tell me about it. What’s the difference between a Supreme Court justice and an absolute monarch? Nothing! Neither one is elected. Both serve for life. Both have the power to change whatever laws they want and subject anyone to their personal desires. Both have barely any limit on what they can do. The Supreme Court can strike down any law they want and make new ones based on their opinions alone, yet there isn’t any part of the government that can strike down the Supreme Court’s decisions. This completely ignores the system of checks and balances the Founding Fathers wanted us to have. I say we pass a Constitutional amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s power. That’s the only thing I can think of to end this glorified oligarchy.
We're losing it because we refuse to do whatever is necessary to keep it. What is going to be the final straw? Conservatives being ordered by judges to concentration camps?
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.