Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
Books for L.A. Nerds: Saints of California
More Prop 8 lawsuits are hitting the California Supreme Court, but still no action has been taken on any of them says the LA Times: "In letters to the court, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups sided with lawsuits that said Proposition 8, which reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage, amounted to a sweeping revision of the state Constitution instead of a more limited amendment. Constitutional revisions can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Proposition 8 reached the ballot as a constitutional amendment after a signature campaign."
Prop 8: Constitutional Amendment or Revision?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (3) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
New Los Angeles Blog created by journalist and creative writing graduate students at USC
http://epo
[more]
SIGN THIS
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/downwithprop8/index.html
I'm a bit lost as to how there can be question with respect to whether this constitutes an amendment or a revision. This article presents an interesting legal opinion on the matter.
However, I disagree with the author insofar as his own example considering whether a proposition against inter-racial marriage would qualify as an amendment or revision seems to answer this question quite clearly.
http://michaeldorf.org/2008/11/revision-or-amendment.html
The intent of Separation of Church and State is spelled out here; People eventually understood that if government had the power to promote religion, it also had the power to destroy it, and that true religious liberty required the government to stay our of religion completely.
The definition of marriage in the two initiatives is identical: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But Proposition 8 embeds that definition in the state Constitution, and it would defy reason for the court to hold that part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
And this year, the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected a suit on same-sex marriage much like the current lawsuits -- Oregon's Constitution has similar provisions on revision and equal protection. As a result, the legal challenge to Proposition 8 is generally seen as a long shot.
Measures that insert sizeable passages on multiple issues seem to fall into the "revision" category. Prop 8 lies at the opposite end of the spectrum, a mere 14 words that define a constitutional provision that has already been established and simply clarifies the spirit of the law.
The opponents of Prop 8 know this as fact, because they know that it would take a "revision" on their behalf in order to write in a new meaning to exclude same-sex marriages from a list of exclusions already written into the cosntitution.
The Gay Activist leaders, which include members of NAMBLA and was founded by Harry Hay, a pedophile, know that they would have to get a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to make such a change. They would likley align themselves witht their polygamist friends to re-write the entire meaning of marriage. That is why No on 8 received millions from members of NAMBLA and polygamist.