Skip Nav
Relationships
Ooh La La! These Beautiful Photos of Couples Give You a Sweet Taste of L'Amour in Paris
Humor
From Infants to Corn Cobs — Sexy Halloween Costumes That Just Aren't Sexy
Netflix
The 16 Sexiest Movies to Watch on Netflix in September

Do You Think Prop. 8 Should Be Repealed?

This weekend CA Attorney General Jerry Brown asked the CA Supreme Court to void Proposition 8 because it is unconstitutional. The attorney general must defend the laws of California. Yet Brown says Prop 8 makes his job impossible, because the amendment contradicts another part of the state Constitution: the equal protection clause.

Right after 52 percent of voters passed the gay marriage ban, Brown claimed he would uphold the will of the voters, and when the Court legalized same-sex marriage earlier this year, Brown had argued against it. But now, Brown says:

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

Brown thinks that in the conflict between the people's amendment power, and the court's duty to protect minorities and liberties, the court's duty should prevail. What do you think?

Source

Join The Conversation
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
DAve- you have the glorious marriage tax PENALTY... that's a right, right? lol!
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
But I'm curious, because as a married person, I haven't seen anymore rights that I didn't have as a single person. Anyway, have a Merry Christmas. :)
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 8 years
Well I've never been married UnDave however I have enough experience to know that you and your wife as with any other married couple have rites that I don't have as a single person. Now if you're talking about semantics such as are they rights like the rights in the Bill of Rights that's silly because even if they're technically called privileges etc. those privileges or rights or whatever you wanna call them are still going to have to answer to the intent of the Constitution of the State of California and that is equal treatment under the law.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
"Those who are married as you know have certain rights under the law that the rest of us do not so IMO it is not the marriage itself that is the right but the rights we are afforded because we are married." What rights do married people have that single people don't?
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 8 years
This may surprise some but I'm inclined to agree Hainan57 that marriage is one of those unique things that isn't necessarily a right in itself but it is an afforder of rights, a gateway to rights. Those who are married as you know have certain rights under the law that the rest of us do not so IMO it is not the marriage itself that is the right but the rights we are afforded because we are married. Domestic partnership no matter how close it may come is not an equal replacement for marriage and if it is not an equal replacement to marriage than to ban homosexuals from getting married is to deny them the equality that the constitution affords them.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
And for the record a private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone he doesn't agree with. Government- that's a whole other debate. But seriously cases like a photographer getting sued because he didn't want to take photos at a gay wedding is why people don't want to legalize gay marriage. It is being forced on everyone.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
If someone can show me a CONSTITUTION that says that, I will agree with you. Not a case, and someone interpreting the constitution. The actual document.
bleached bleached 8 years
How do we know they don't? We don't know how they communicate with each other. For all we know they could be saying "Did you see that pansy? She's a crossbreader." :ROTFL: And as to the polygamy thing, I'm not against the idea of being having several wives/husbands... I just don't understand why anyone would want that. I can barely handle one :)
Myst Myst 8 years
CG, there is only one correct theological view of the Covenant, and that is the 'Biblical' view. The theologians of the new covenant system are fond of claiming that the old covenant law of Moses is somehow not in effect for Christians today, while at the same time using old covenant laws of Moses (thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, etc.) as laws still in effect for Christians today. The understanding as they see it is if it's repeated in the new covenant, then it's still in effect. But the question is, how then is the old covenant law then still in effect if it was done away with? It is inconsistent at best, and presents a very shaky foundation. In this system it is supposed that the New Covenant is a totally different Covenant, when in fact it is different and New only in that the continuity of it is seen in a new and glorious way in it's fulfillment, that we who are under that law may not all be condemned. It's not new in the sense that the law is abrogated. It's new in that it doesn't condemn us because of our works, or lack thereof. However, it still condemns those not in Christ, which is proof that nothing has changed concerning the old covenant law. Those who know the law and don't keep it will be judged more severely, thus the law stands. James 2:8-11 * "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: * But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. * For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. * For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Clearly, and without ambiguity, the law of Moses stands. It is not done away with for the reprobate. The only people who are not condemned by it, are those in Christ. So while New Covenant Theologians believe that Christ gives the Church new and higher standards of conduct than Moses gave under a covenant of law, it is self evident that the law of Christ 'is' the law of Moses. The law under which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob toiled is the same law under which we toil. And as they were Saved not by fulfilling the Covenant of works, but Christ fulfilling it for them, so we have that same Grace. Proponents of this view argue that there is no 'covenant of Grace,' but this is the most accurate title to represent the single plan of redemption which God has instituted from the beginning. plus the New Covenant law is primarily found by Baptists; 7 Day Adventists and most Catholic repel this view.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 8 years
stoning is a Mosaic law, not applicable anymore. Jesus Died for our sins, if you Sin now and not repent then your punishment is the judgement from God. understand?
leeluvfashion leeluvfashion 8 years
* I meant "how the innocent have rights taken away...."
leeluvfashion leeluvfashion 8 years
Two good souls that love and value one another should be able to legally marry each other. No matter what sex they are. Others need to remove their prejudice views and see that we are all just souls that deserve equal rights. The ONLY time I believe a marriage should not be permitted is when one or both of those persons are in jail. Being in jail is about punishment, not having the same rights as a free being. Once free if they want to marry- fine, whatever. However to tell two people that have never committed a crime except not being socially accepted, that they cannot marry is far from fair. (I get that my first statement may contradict this one however I am extremely tired, so hopefully you get the idea what I mean (how the innocent have rights are taken away but criminals still have some of theirs.)) Also, to say there is stereotyping of those that voted in Prop. 8; how could people not create a stereotype? Most of the supporters continue to quote the bible, hence the Catholic stereotype. Most Catholics are hypocrites since they DO pick and choose which "sins" to acknowledge. How convenient that they have "written off" the others. However it isn't just Catholics that pick & choose, there are plenty of establishments that are that way (to clear up any issue you might have with only pointing the finger in one direction.)
organicsugr organicsugr 8 years
"Fine by me - sounds like 'promoting the general welfare' which when the Constitution was written referred to "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being"." I'm sure that's what the framers intended. The "general welfare" is repudiation of oligarchy, not a blank check to create a giant commune.
stephley stephley 8 years
Check the case law. In California, it is considered a basic right to form committed relationships that establish a family unit. To suddenly say 'oh, that doesn't apply to gay people' denies them a basic right.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
First of all, seeing as gay marriage wasn't legal until judges overturned the proposition 22.... I'm pretty sure the California constitution didn't say gay marriage was a right when written, but ok. California changed the wording of their constitution... :? No they didn't. Marriage isn't a right. If someone can show me a constitution that says that, I will agree with you.
organicsugr organicsugr 8 years
So how do you all feel about incestual marriage?
stephley stephley 8 years
"Shouldn't we be stoning half the population right about now?" Oh please YES!!!
ECULeah ECULeah 8 years
I hate when people say that "Marriage comes from God, etc!" It just shows how ignorant people are about their own religion. As someone who double majored in Religious Studies and gave serious thought to getting my PhD and being a professor, I can say with absolute certainty that marriage is not something that God holds high - Christianity almost died out because true Christians weren't supposed to marry (only lesser people married because they could not contain their lust) because Jesus was coming back soon and you were supposed to remain as pure as possible. It was only after a generation started dying with no return of Christ that they said, well marriage is better than nothing. Oh and all the people trying to "protect" marriage, where is the law against divorce and infidelity, the true destruction of marriage? Shouldn't we be stoning half the population right about now?
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 8 years
Well while Att. Gen. Jerry (vacillating) Brown figures out which spot is cool enough for him to stand in the point of constitutional law is clear. Random groups of constituents no matter what group they are or what they represent were never meant to have the power to de-construct and re-construct the State constitution. IMO Voter amendments were only meant to be addendum's to existing laws/rights or new laws which do not conflict with standing laws or rights. As I've said before I just find it quite ironic how the Christians who wrote proposed organized and pushed Prop.8 in an effort to rebuke what (they) consider to be a sin by employing the sin of lying as their most formidable weapon. For Christians to employ a sin as their sword and claim to be doing right by their beliefs is in my opinion one pathetic joke. If you are a Christian and you took no part in such non-sense then I do not speak to you. However, I would ask one thing of you turn to your brothers & sisters and tell them to call forth their better selves.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 8 years
.......
Myst Myst 8 years
so true Jude, so true. You gotta love the Saudis though, they follow their laws and traditions to a T. No picking and choosing what they will choose to follow
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
Dude, I just commented on that post with that exact sentiment! "Now that's traditional marriage for ya: a dowry, a contract, and a young girl paired off with an old man from whom she cannot currently escape." I feel like Liberty posted that just knowing that at least one of us would make the obvious connection ;)
stephley stephley 8 years
This is from the latest post on Citizen, it says as much about the historic tradition of marriage as any romantic notion: "An eight-year-old Saudi girl will not be able to divorce her 58-year-old husband until she reaches puberty. A Saudi court rejected her mother's divorce plea, ruling that the marriage contract — signed by the groom and the father with the verbal condition that the marriage would not be consummated for 10 years — was valid."
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
But what would the big deal be to anyone else if one gay guy calls his gay partner his "wife" instead of his "husband"? I just don't get it. Oh, well. I have a feeling this is something we'll never see eye-to-eye on, so have a :cake:
stephley stephley 8 years
"I wonder what the next fundamental right in the constitution will be. Perhaps healthcare?" Fine by me - sounds like 'promoting the general welfare' which when the Constitution was written referred to "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being".
Demi Lovato and Brad Paisley Hand in Hand Performance Video
What You Should Do in Joshua Tree
Before and After Photos of California Drought
Big Little Lies Filming Locations Tour Guide
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds