And Maine makes it 5 ....

[_solomarineris]

[quote="why me"]Well, we are living in the last days, aren't we?
This ultimate garbage card religious zealots play, most of us know and play
well, we do see your bluff and up the ante. There is no response, there will never be.
Jesus was supposed to be here 2000yrs ago.
Where is he?

The Proclamation on the Family is
Another garbage spawned by Brethren to keep business alive;
Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan
it is essential to Brethren plans their very survival hinges on oppressive,repressive archaic "Pater Familias" Penishood directed way of life.

There's absolutely no equality in this pseudo lord's plan.
People are not stupid.

[_rcrocket]

Moreover, the court used a "rational -basis" review (as opposed to a "compelling state interest" review) of the amendment, so it was easy for the gov't to show a good enough reason to keep the amendment.

Hmm. My point exactly. From your own mouth. (Keyboard.)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Moreover, the court used a "rational -basis" review (as opposed to a "compelling state interest" review) of the amendment, so it was easy for the gov't to show a good enough reason to keep the amendment.

Hmm. My point exactly. From your own mouth. (Keyboard.)

in my opinion, the question comes down to whether the U.S. Supreme Court will treat homosexuals as a "suspect class," which would trigger the "compelling state interest" standard. The CA supreme court did it, as well as other courts, whereas other courts have not. But I think that issue will ultimately decide the issue.

[_Calculus Crusader]

It'll also be interesting to see how California's Supreme Court rules on the validity of Prop. 8 in light of the recent Iowa ruling. There are elements of the Iowa ruling that are not contemplated in the California ruling, and that the latter justices may find persuasive. The California court is supposed to give its decision next month.

The Iowa ruling is completely immaterial to the dispute before the CA Supreme Court, which is whether Prop 8 was an amendment (which it was) or a revision (which it was not).

Furthermore, the California legislature is apparently willing to vote in favor of gay marriage, and Schwarzenegger has steadily drifted in that direction as well. I think California politicians prefer that the court grants gay marriage -- it takes the heat off of them -- but that they'll pick up the slack if the court doesn't strike down Prop. 8. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw gay marriage in California in a few month's time.

The CA constitution has been amended, which means neither the legislature nor the governor can do anything about it. Someone who is allegedly slated to attend law school in the fall should know that.

[_JohnStuartMill]

It'll also be interesting to see how California's Supreme Court rules on the validity of Prop. 8 in light of the recent Iowa ruling. There are elements of the Iowa ruling that are not contemplated in the California ruling, and that the latter justices may find persuasive. The California court is supposed to give its decision next month.

The Iowa ruling is completely immaterial to the dispute before the CA Supreme Court, which is whether Prop 8 was an amendment (which it was) or a revision (which it was not).

It's always possible that the court could find Prop. 8 inconsistent with other sections of the state constitution and strike it down for that reason. The amendment/revision question turns on how important the marriage right is, actually.

Furthermore, the California legislature is apparently willing to vote in favor of gay marriage, and Schwarzenegger has steadily drifted in that direction as well. I think California politicians prefer that the court grants gay marriage -- it takes the heat off of them -- but that they'll pick up the slack if the court doesn't strike down Prop. 8. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw gay marriage in California in a few month's time.

The CA constitution has been amended, which means neither the legislature nor the governor can do anything about it. Someone who is allegedly slated to attend law school in the fall should know that.

To be more precise, I should have said "movement toward gay marriage in a few months' time", and you're right that the governor can't do anything at this point, but it's not true that the legislature can't do anything about Prop 8. The California Constitution can be changed in the legislature in much the same way as the U.S. Constitution can:

ARTICLE X.


Mode of Amending and Revising the Constitution.


Sec. 1. Any amendment, or amendments to this Constitution, may be proposed in the Senate or Assembly; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendments, shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the Legislature then next to be chosen, and shall be published for three months next preceding the time of making such choice. And if, in the Legislature next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment of amendments, shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the Legislature to submit such proposed amendment of amendments to the people, in such manner, and at such time as the Legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, voting thereon, such amendment of amendments, shall become part of the Constitution.

Sec. 2. And if, at any time two-thirds of the Senate and Assembly shall think it necessary to revise and change this entire Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors, at the next election for members of the Legislature, to vote for or against the convention ; and if it shall appear that a majority of the electors voting at such election have voted in favor of calling a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next session, provide by law for calling a convention, to be holden within six months after the passage of such law; and such convention shall consist of a number of members not less than that of both branches of the Legislature

[_Calculus Crusader]

The CA constitution has been amended, which means neither the legislature nor the governor can do anything about it. Someone who is allegedly slated to attend law school in the fall should know that.

To be more precise, I should have said "movement toward gay marriage in a few months' time", and you're right that the governor can't do anything at this point, but it's not true that the legislature can't do anything about Prop 8. The California Constitution can be changed in the legislature in much the same way as the U.S. Constitution can:

ARTICLE X.


Mode of Amending and Revising the Constitution.


Sec. 1. Any amendment, or amendments to this Constitution, may be proposed in the Senate or Assembly; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendments, shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the Legislature then next to be chosen, and shall be published for three months next preceding the time of making such choice. And if, in the Legislature next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment of amendments, shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the Legislature to submit such proposed amendment of amendments to the people, in such manner, and at such time as the Legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, voting thereon, such amendment of amendments, shall become part of the Constitution.

Sec. 2. And if, at any time two-thirds of the Senate and Assembly shall think it necessary to revise and change this entire Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors, at the next election for members of the Legislature, to vote for or against the convention ; and if it shall appear that a majority of the electors voting at such election have voted in favor of calling a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next session, provide by law for calling a convention, to be holden within six months after the passage of such law; and such convention shall consist of a number of members not less than that of both branches of the Legislature

They don't have the 2/3, JSM, Esquire.

[_JohnStuartMill]

2/3 is only necessary for changing the entire constitution, Mr. 8th-grade-reading-level.

[_Calculus Crusader]

2/3 is only necessary for changing the entire constitution, Mr. 8th-grade-reading-level.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18

[_JohnStuartMill]

I was quoting the original constitution, which apparently has been changed since then. My bad.

Your source supports my original point, though, which was that the legislature in fact CAN do something about Prop. 8.