Comments on: Free California

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:30:22 +0000

are you conflating the federal constitution and the california one? seems like it. one applies in certain situations and the other in other situations. but both do not apply at the same time.

By: Julie Mercer

Julie Mercer — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:55:37 +0000

Prop. 8 was not designed to "create special laws for one set of citizens" as you implied above. Nor was it for the purpose of denying anyone's individual rights. It simply defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I fail to see how that could violate CA.'s Constitution. Laws are enacted frequently in order to promote order, safety, and reinforce responsible behavior. Just because someone does not like the restriction does not make it constitutionally prohibited. However, I do agree that marriage legislation should be left up to each state to decide.

By: creativ1

creativ1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:40:36 +0000

I should add, under majority rule, people are capable of doing ANYTHING to one another.

By: creativ1

creativ1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:37:34 +0000

My guess is no. But my libertarian tendencies tell me that state or federal gov't really lack a compelling state interest in marriage to begin with, absent a demonstrable harm to be prevented.

Quite frankly, this is not a state or federal issue where gov't is concerned. It is a religious issue that belongs with religious institutions. Same goes with marriage licenses, and divorce.

If conservatives in particular were really concerned about protecting traditional marriage, they would seek to abolish or rework no-fault divorce to make marriage an enforceable contract, (divorce by mutual consent?) and minimize the incentives for out-of-wedlock child births (child support), which began when someone back in the late 60's (LBJ?) thought it was a good idea to expand that scheme to all non-welfare divorcing or unmarried parents.

Same-sex marriage is not the issue. It's divorce.

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:26:59 +0000

You’re not comparing two similar things at all…of course the will of the people does not go as far as dismembering people.

The rule of law is the constitution – federal and state. The federal constitution leaves the question of marriage to the states (or out of government altogether)

The state constitution – THAT is where you make the argument that you are making. Does the CA constitution prevent the people from saying one group can be married and another cannot?

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:53:02 +0000

on top of it – what IS there under this clause that a state CAN do? by your definition – nothing.

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:52:29 +0000

Jason – for you to be correct, the phrase “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” must have included marriages sanctioned by the state at the moment of the 14th amendment’s ratification.

Can you point to anything that verifies that? In my studies on the subject, which have gone for a number of years, I have yet to see a single thing indicating what you claim.

By: creativ1

creativ1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:38:10 +0000

Michael–I think there's something here that needs clarification. "The will of the people" basically means majority rule, no? If a majority of CA voters decided that they wanted to castrate everyone with the first name "Michael" (which would include me), that doesn't make them right, and you and me wrong. It means that the rule of law no longer applies, and that we should not be considered a republic, but a democracy or oligarchy, correct?

By: Joseph Dobrian

Joseph Dobrian — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:35:07 +0000

Individual rights cannot, must not, be voted away by plebiscite — and still less can such a pernicious procedure be immune to judicial review.

By: creativ1

creativ1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:33:18 +0000

I'm not siding with proponents of same-sex marriage. I'm merely pointing out the obvious–if we're going to enable the gov't to create special laws for one set of citizens, there's very little stopping them to doing it to others, including you and me.