CA prop 8 ruling

[ronmcdon]

Thought you guys might be interested in the ruling this past week,
esp since so many here were passionate about the ordeal.
all prior threads were locked.
This based on a CA supreme court ruling.

It's NOT the same thing as having the proposition passed by voters several months ago.
After it was passed, it went to court.
This is the court ruling that upheld Prop 8.

From LA Times:

The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before November will stay married.
The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan
May 27, 2009

Details:

California high court upholds Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage27-2009may27,0,7752874.story)

What say you?
Please keep this civil, thanks!

[DALAZ_68]

lol...the only reason i can see blatently of why those married couples stay married is because the US doesnt want to return all the monies lol

[Daniel.]

I think CA just needs to reform the way new laws are made. This whole prop thing is bogus.

[S14DB]

lol...the only reason i can see blatently of why those married couples stay married is because the US doesnt want to return all the monies lol
You mean CA doesn't? This was CA supreme court.

Proposition 8 has no retroactive effect. It never nullified the marriages on the books. Just stopped new ones.

Being that the vote was so close last time. I'm sure another proposition will be on the ballot next time.

[Brian]

We used to make black people drink from different fountains, use seperate doors, bathrooms, everything, etc.

That was seen as the "norm" back then and acceptable.

Today, we live in quite a different world.


This whole Prop 8 / gay marriage thing seems no different to me.

it's only a matter of time.

[ronmcdon]

^^

DANIEL
Pls elaborate.
Are you referring to Prop 8 specifically,
or CA or the US in general.

Personally I have reservations about having any court having the power to overturn what ppl vote.
doesn't matter what the issue is.
sort of defeats the purpose of a democracy, if ultimately all decisions fall into the say of a handful of judges.

If the proposed proposition was deemed 'unconstitutional', that should be determined before the prop goes on the ballot and not after.
it's a wasteful, counter-intuitive (if not primitive) way of doing things.
Why even bother having a vote if judges have final say on everything controversial?

such is the way of CA (if not the US) government bureaucracy,
but that's just one of the things you have to deal with here.

Back to Prop 8,
I'm fairly certain another prop to counter prop 8 will be introduced next time around.
It's just an endless cycle of courtroom battles & politics.

[ronmcdon]

Being that the vote was so close last time. I'm sure another proposition will be on the ballot next time.

agreed, it's more or less a temporary state of affairs.
most likely meaningless in the long run, whatever the court ruling was.

[Daniel.]

^^

DANIEL
Pls elaborate.
Are you referring to Prop 8 specifically,
or CA or the US in general.

Personally I have reservations about having a court having the power to overturn what ppl vote.
doesn't matter what the issue is.
sort of defeats the purpose of a democracy, if ultimately it falls into the say of a handful of judges.

If the proposed proposition was deemed 'unconstitutional', that should be determined before the prop goes on the ballot and not after.
it's a wasteful, counter-intuitive (if not primitive) way of doing things.
Why even bother having a vote if judges have final say on everything controversial?

such is the way of CA (if not the US) government bureaucracy,
but that's just one of the things you have to deal with here.

I mean CA.

And I totally agree with you. Things should be deemed unconstitutional before they are put on the ballot.

The things are now, it doesn't take much to create a proposition. Aren't we one of the only states to even have props?

I am definitely pro gay marriage, but in the case of prop 8 I can see it from both sides.

On one hand, I think everyone should have equal rights. On the other hand I feel that there needs to be more restrictions these types of things that end up on the ballot.

I seem to remember reading that the CA supreme court were leaning towards this decision for awhile. Their reasoning was that if the people of CA voted on something, who are they to overturn and control what the people decide?

They said exactly what I was thinking. The process under which something gets put onto the state ballot needs to be regulated further, and needs to be stricter because as it is, the requirements are much too lax. They also said that they don't have any control over making those changes as once again the people of CA have to come forward and make that decision themselves.

sigh.

[S14DB]

^^

DANIEL
Pls elaborate.
Are you referring to Prop 8 specifically,
or CA or the US in general.

Personally I have reservations about having any court having the power to overturn what ppl vote.
doesn't matter what the issue is.
sort of defeats the purpose of a democracy, if ultimately all decisions fall into the say of a handful of judges.

If the proposed proposition was deemed 'unconstitutional', that should be determined before the prop goes on the ballot and not after.
it's a wasteful, counter-intuitive (if not primitive) way of doing things.
Why even bother having a vote if judges have final say on everything controversial?

such is the way of CA (if not the US) government bureaucracy,
but that's just one of the things you have to deal with here.

Back to Prop 8,
I'm fairly certain another prop to counter prop 8 will be introduced next time around.
It's just an endless cycle of courtroom battles & politics.
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Const itution)

[ronmcdon]

Not saying there shouldn't be a judicial branch.
I was implying judicial review should occur before a law is presented before voters.
not before & after, OR just after.