The law suits have begun

Let's talk about various types of religion.
User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

The law suits have begun

Postby Jeff T. » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:48 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 0763.story

Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.

The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said

Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:14 pm

I hate to be a broken record, as I've said this before here (once right after the 2004 election), but there's a simple solution to this -- get government out of the marriage business. Make *everything* a civil union -- hetero and homo. As far as the government is concerned, that's as far as it goes. Equal protection under the law, same legal benefits in both cases.

If someone wants to be *married* on top of that, go to a church and get married. If you hate gays, go to a church that won't marry gays. If you're gay and want to marry, go to a church that will marry gays. If you don't give a shit and just want a tax deduction, health benefits and hospital visitation rights -- don't bother with the church at all. (If that path had been open to me, I would have taken it.)

You want "protect the sanctity" of marriage? Give total control of it to the churches! That's about as sacred as you can get. Why should the government get involved in determining how "sacred" something is?

Madness.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney