It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So, the Legislature may propose an amendment or revision IF there is a vote of 2/3 entered into the journal. Otherwise, they may not. The 2/3 vote is REQUIRED.
Churches are already protected from this. They don't have to recognize any marriage they don't want to.
I'm beginning to conclude that a marriage defined as "between a man and a woman" continues to provide a refuge for some religious/non-religious people to say, "Look, I can't be gay, because I'm married to a woman/man!"
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And slavery was legal and black people couldn't marry and women couldn't vote. Ah... the good old days, eh?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. The legislature may propose an amendment if 2/3 vote to do so. Otherwise they may not. That part is true. But nowhere is it stated that this is a requirement for a proposal to be on the ballot. That is where your logic goes off track.
The California constitution recognizes two types of changes: "revisions" and "amendments." The distinction, which is not elaborated in the constitutional text and barely explained in California state court decisions, matters a great deal because the state constitution places a higher hurdle in front of revisions than amendments. "Revisions" can be effected only through approval by two-thirds of each state house, followed by a majority vote of the people. "Amendments" can be effected by simple majority vote of the people, without prior legislative approval.
...
Prop 8 stripped (1) a fundamental right (marriage) from (2) a suspect class (gays). Because of the importance of these changes, they argue, it is thus a revision and not an amendment.
The following issues bearing on the revision/amendment distinction are raised: First, can a fundamental right be denied through amendment, requiring only a majority vote of the people? Second, can a bare majority target a suspect class by mere amendment? Either of these alone would present a novel issue for the state courts. (Important rights of criminal defendants were at issue in Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal 3d 336 (Cal. 1990), though the court didn't call them "fundamental rights" and at any rate held that the case involved a revision.) Together, they're a double-whammy of constitutional change.
"Any major revision to the state Constitution should not be allowed to circumvent the legal system," said Assemblyman Ammiano. "The fact is, Proposition 8 was improperly instituted through the ballot process without legislative involvement.
without any further explanation. Again, I mention the fact that section XVIII of the California Constitution, the section that addresses changes to the document itself, contains no enumerated difference between an 'amendment' and a 'revision'.
Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides different vehicles for amending and revising the Constitution.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
There is no difference enumerated in Section XVIII of the California Constitution between an 'amendment' and a 'revision'.
SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution.
...
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
Originally posted by sos37
It's the right decision. If it was on the ballot for election, despite the reasons, then the decision by voters should be upheld until the next election cycle when another amendment canceling this one can be brought to a vote.
Originally posted by Walkswithfish
The day any court voids the vote of the people on ANY issue which a majority have voted on will be a bad day for democracy as a whole.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And slavery was legal and black people couldn't marry and women couldn't vote. Ah... the good old days, eh?
Originally posted by Oldtimer2
With all the schools proposing to be closed,these idiots are going to further waste the tax dollars on something that was voted on,I'm real sick of gay people now,they have no regard for anyone but themselves,move someplace else you can't seem to follow rules,this is why people hate gays,they think they are special
Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Oolon
I hope they throw that out. Until someone can tell me exactly how a gay marriage adversely effects your relationship with your hetro spouse, I think 8 was pure hate.
That's what I wonder, too.
And, I've yet to get an honest answer to that question.
Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
It's the right decision. If it was on the ballot for election, despite the reasons, then the decision by voters should be upheld until the next election cycle when another amendment canceling this one can be brought to a vote.
Originally posted by mgmirkin
The issue, as he sees it boils down to religion, and the state's attempt to force churches to recognize and perform gay marriages, which goes against God's teachings, thus the church is opposed to.
The question is how to resolve such a thing. IE, allow churches the right of refusal to perform a ceremony between gays, if their church forbids it.