So what do Ca gays do now?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The Church spearheaded the battle to take away a fundamental right recognized by the CA state constitution. I don't believe this has ever occurred.

If I recall a law was passed initially on this. Some judges then detemined the law unconstitutional for CA.

Prop. 22 was a law, NOT an amendment. And the CA Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional, and at the same time found that equal protection required gay couples have the same fundament right to marry that heterosexual were recognized long ago to have. This established the fundamental constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians; consequesntly, thousands of gay couples were married under CA law.

A legal process was then followed to amend the constition. This had never happened before?

Not to take away an established and recognized fundamental constitutional right. Do you know of any? I sure don't.

What amending a constitution or taking away something due to the amendment?

Amendments certainly have occurred, but never to take away an established freedom and right.

The federal constitution was amended and took away the right the drink booze. Later it gave it back.

You're missing the point -- the right to drink alcohol is NOT a fundamental right recognized under the Constitution. The right to marry is (since at least 1967).

The federal constitution also was amended to add the ability to the government to levy an income tax and thus take away the right to much of your money.

Again, not a fundamental right. Keep trying ....

The constitution was amended is some cases to grant rights and clarify other things.

None of which dealt with a fundamental right or freedom. Keep trying ....

So you are ok with the violent bigotry gays and others are showing but and slow to condemn.

Not at all, and I have condemned any violence shown by either side. But I'm not surprised by any of it -- you screw with a group's fundamental rights and freedom and you're asking for trouble. Period. Must like the resistance the Saints showed during the Utah War, when they felt their rights were being denied.

But the words homophobe and bigot are quick off your lips against those for prop 8 even though they were not violent and followed the law.

And I'll say it again. The primary motive behind those who supported Prop. 8 (except perhaps those who blindly followed the Brethren) was homophobia and bigotry.

[_asbestosman]

The primary motive behind those who supported Prop. 8 (except perhaps those who blindly followed the Brethren) was homophobia and bigotry.

Homophobia? For some perhaps, but I don't think there are very many people who live in dread that when they use the public restrooms a homosexual could be next to them. Well, I might a bit more afraid of homosexuals nowadays what with all the violence. There's a reason I've kept my BYU stuff a bit more hidden lately. But that's not homophobia, that's normal human fear of angry people.

If there is anything many people seem to fear it is that their children will become gay, not that gays will hurt them personally. An irrational fear? Pehaps. It's one I don't share. But is that really homophobia, or is it the fear of God?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Homophobia? For some perhaps, but I don't think there are very many people who live in dread that when they use the public restrooms a homosexual could be next to them.

That's why I included the word "bigotry."

If there is anything many people seem to fear it is that their children will become gay, not that gays will hurt them personally. An irrational fear? Pehaps. It's one I don't share. But is that really homophobia, or is it the fear of God?

I think fear of gays can't be limited to just personal violence. I think it also encompasses irrational fear of gay people in general. Not for any particular reason other than they simply exist.

[_asbestosman]

That's why I included the word "bigotry."

Yes, but why not leave it at "bigotry".

I think fear of gays can't be limited to just personal violence. I think it also encompasses irrational fear of gay people in general. Not for any particular reason other than they simply exist.

But I don't think that's what it is--otherwise why not lock them up or something? I think it's a fear of sin in a similar way to how many fear abortion. Do they fear abortionists, or do they fear the sinful nature of the practice?

[_RAJ]

Jason wrote:

If I recall a law was passed initially on this. Some judges then detemined the law unconstitutional for CA. A legal process was then followed to amend the constition.

Just a niggling point here. We don't yet know if the process and the vote WERE valid. That is under consideration as I write. There is also the "Amendment vs. Revision" question, which has yet to be decided.

Here is a very concise letter, which you can find on a new CA Supreme Court page:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supr ... -multi.pdf

And here is a round-up link to all the prop 8 challenges:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supr ... /prop8.htm

[_Jason Bourne]

Prop. 22 was a law, NOT an amendment.

Yea that is what I said. It was a law.

And the CA Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional, and at the same time found that equal protection required gay couples have the same fundament right to marry that heterosexual were recognized long ago to have. This established the fundamental constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians; consequesntly, thousands of gay couples were married under CA law.

Courts can interpret the law and find something unconstitutional. And Constitutions can then be amended, and yes to take away a right as has happened, not withstanding your comments below.

Not to take away an established and recognized fundamental constitutional right. Do you know of any? I sure don't.

Wrong.

Amendments certainly have occurred, but never to take away an established freedom and right.

Wrong

And even if it were not wrong I see no reason that this could not happen. Is taking away a right specifically forbidden by the constitution. Oh another on, I believe it was the 14th amendment the limited states powers and rights.

You're missing the point -- the right to drink alcohol is NOT a fundamental right recognized under the Constitution. The right to marry is (since at least 1967).

Marriage was not a fundamental right under the constitution in 1920. One could argue that if the constitution did not forbid it then it was by default a right.

The federal constitution also was amended to add the ability to the government to levy an income tax and thus take away the right to much of your money.

Again, not a fundamental right. Keep trying ....

Sure it was a right. A right not to have one's income taxed. The fact that it took an amendment to the constitution to impose this confiscatory tax shows that in fact a US citizen had the right not to pay income tax. It was specifically unconstitutional to impose such a tax. This is exactly on point.

So you are ok with the violent bigotry gays and others are showing but and slow to condemn.

Not at all, and I have condemned any violence shown by either side. But I'm not surprised by any of it -- you screw with a group's fundamental rights and freedom and you're asking for trouble. Period.

Sorry. I just do not see the same outrage from you. Not near it at all.

Must like the resistance the Saints showed during the Utah War, when they felt their rights were being denied.

Don't try to change the subject.

And I'll say it again. The primary motive behind those who supported Prop. 8 (except perhaps those who blindly followed the Brethren) was homophobia and bigotry.

I'll say it again. You are full of crap here. I think This is your own little bigotry showing. People did have rational and reasonable motives that were not bigoted or based in fear at all. Some maybe were but many were not. This is simply your way to dismiss them out of hand. I am sure you will continue though and I will continue to disagree. That is ok.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

People did have rational and reasonable motives that were not bigoted or based in fear at all.

Rational and reasonable motives? Like what?

Virtually every "reason" I have heard is based on fear or hatred.

I'm not trying to be rude or irritating....I'm seriously trying to understand the problem and try as I might I am not seeing it.

~td~

[_Jason Bourne]

Rational and reasonable motives? Like what?

Virtually every "reason" I have heard is based on fear or hatred.

I'm not trying to be rude or irritating....I'm seriously trying to understand the problem and try as I might I am not seeing it.

I think you have read them. I think the explanation by the Church is reasonable. Go to their web page and read it if you have not. You can disagree with the argument certainly. But just because you do does not mean their rational reasoning is bigoted.

[_truth dancer]

Rational and reasonable motives? Like what?

Virtually every "reason" I have heard is based on fear or hatred.

I'm not trying to be rude or irritating....I'm seriously trying to understand the problem and try as I might I am not seeing it.

I think you have read them. I think the explanation by the Church is reasonable. Go to their web page and read it if you have not. You can disagree with the argument certainly. But just because you do does not mean their rational reasoning is bigoted.

Jason, don't you think fear is at the heart of all the "reasons"?

Fear that Satan is winning, fear that society will fall apart, fear that the Constitution will hang by a thread, fear that "traditional family values" will disappear, fear that gayness will increase, fear that society will accept homosexuals and SSM, fear that God will be unhappy?

~td~

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, don't you think fear is at the heart of all the "reasons"?

No necessarily no.

Fear that Satan is winning, fear that society will fall apart, fear that the Constitution will hang by a thread, fear that "traditional family values" will disappear, fear that gayness will increase, fear that society will accept homosexuals and SSM, fear that God will be unhappy?

Perhaps people really do believe these things are wrong and bad for society. That does not mean they are driven out of fear. Some perhaps. Others are not. Maybe it is fear of the influence the religion has that drives some on the opposite end aye?