Weren’t propositions 187 and 209 also similarly left to twist in the wind like this?
We are Ruled, not governed.
That’s exactly right. Gray Davis did it to 187. Hence, the constitutionality of 187 has never been fully litigated.
209 is the law, but you are correct about Prop 187. It was never appealed.
They should file a lawsuit suing Arnie and Jerry for failing to fulfill the duties of their office. They have failed to defend the constitution of the State of California. Moreover, they should also sue the legislators for failure to perform the duties of their office as well if they do not impeach Arnie and Jerry. Furthermore, if you are a citizen of California (registered voter) you should have standing in this case. It is a violation of your civil rights that your vote and thousands of others are being overturned and invalidated (no longer counted) by two men, Arnold and Jerry, who choose to flout the will of people of California by making this decision not to pursue this matter in Federal Court for all the people of California who voted for Prop 8. Would it be ok for Jerry to decide that he no longer wants to prosecute the laws because he personally disagrees with them? Of course not, For instance, what if Jerry decided that Pedophilia is ok? Would that be acceptable? The voters of CA. decided that was illegal therefore he is required to prosecute and defend that law. Only the court gets to decide the constitutionality of the law. BTW that is a law based on the mores of society. Therefore, a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only, is a law based on the mores of society and is not a violation of civil rights. The only reason that marriage has never been defined by law previously is that it has been UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD (Common Law) for centuries as being between a man and a woman. I challenge anyone to find a quote from one of the founders of this great nation stating that marriage is acceptable between members of the same sex. You won’t find any references because they do not exist.
“the judge said it “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” “
Isn’t that nice that they
1: Think we have a “fundamental right to marry” if that were the case we should have the “right” to marry our dog, cat, or even ourselves. What meaning is there to this thing they call Marriage in California?
2: and the injustice things it “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” As if your sex had nothing to do with your ability to reproductive capabilities.
I would assert this 1 simple truth Marriage is NOT just about love it is indeed mostly about procreation. That’s why we have laws against marriage between close family members, the underages, between us and non-humans, and historically the inability of your partner to provide you with a child was grounds for a diverse.
This basic and historic propose of the union known as marriage is also why marriage was said to be consummated only after you had sexual intercourse with your spouse.(An act the Catholic Church historically condemned for any other propose then procreation).
Indeed all the evidence both historic and traditional in the world points to the simple fact that marriage is about procreation, not just love, or really even necessarily love at all.
This is why churches correctly say that people of the same sex cannot marry unless they are capable of having a child with each other. It has nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals and everything to do with the basic propose and function of Marriage.