DiscussMormonism.com

See link below for full article:

Here's an excellent quote for the LA city attorney:

No matter what your view of same-sex marriage, the passage of Proposition 8 has pushed California to the brink of a constitutional crisis, and it’s important to understand why. This measure sought to do something that no constitutional amendment has ever done in our history: to strip a fundamental right from a protected class of citizens. In doing so, it did not merely undo a narrowly disfavored Supreme Court decision. Its effect is nowhere near so simple or elegant.

Good luck to LA and the other counties in trying to fix this constitutional abomination.

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress ... challenge/

I wonder if Prop. 8 can survive Section 7(b) of Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution, which states:

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

How did Prop. 8 ever get on the ballot in light of this language?

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

But Rollo, homosexuals have the same privilege, to enter into a marriage with someone of the opposite sex. ;)

No matter what your view of same-sex marriage, the passage of Proposition 8 has pushed California to the brink of a constitutional crisis, and it’s important to understand why.

Woah, did he just about say the California constitution is hanging by a thread?

The Dude wrote:

No matter what your view of same-sex marriage, the passage of Proposition 8 has pushed California to the brink of a constitutional crisis, and it’s important to understand why.

Woah, did he just about say the California constitution is hanging by a thread?

Yup. The great irony: Mormons have always claimed this would happen, but it turns out that the Mormons have caused it to occur.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Yup. The great irony: Mormons have always claimed this would happen, but it turns out that the Mormons have caused it to occur.

Or maybe it just shows how crying about the integrity of the constitution has become a cliché.

It's just amazing to me how many temper tantrums are being thrown here.

Due process was followed. The people have spoken. Try again in a few years when a generation of the bigots have died off.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I wonder if Prop. 8 can survive Section 7(b) of Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution, which states:

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

How did Prop. 8 ever get on the ballot in light of this language?

As I recall, there was a challenge as to the appropriateness of prop 8 appearing on the ballot and the Court refused to hear it (as is there custom). They DID NOT rule on the merits, they just didn't hear the case at that time. Had prop 8 been defeated, it would have been a moot point. Since it passed, they have to go there.

Scottie wrote:Due process was followed. The people have spoken. Try again in a few years when a generation of the bigots have died off.

Due process may not have been followed, if Prop. 8 violates Section 7(b) of Article 1 in the Declaration of Rights. Even if Prop. 8 survives that challenge, I don't see it making it past the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

I heard not terribly long ago (perhaps on NPR) that there are a number of CA legislators who are looking to shoot down the Prop.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Scottie wrote:Due process was followed. The people have spoken. Try again in a few years when a generation of the bigots have died off.

Due process may not have been followed, if Prop. 8 violates Section 7(b) of Article 1 in the Declaration of Rights. Even if Prop. 8 survives that challenge, I don't see it making it past the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But then you run into the argument about ex-cons, specifically sex offenders. They are a "group of people" that do not have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else does. Does this clause apply to them as well?

Plus, we need to throw in the obligatory slippery slope. Does polygamy, incest, bestiality, man/appliance fall into this as well?

Immigrants are not given the same rights in that they cannot become President. Should we change this law?

Why was this even put on a ballot? Surely someone noticed this before Nov??