I was looking over some of the articles online about the prop 8 trial and I noticed something. They seem to be arguing about whether or not it is harmful to deny same sex marriage. There's a lot about potential effects that would come from having it or denying it.
Here's the question. Why are they talking about that at all. Isn't this trial supposed to be about whether or not the people of California had the right to put the amendment into their Constitution?
So far I haven't seen any testimony about the amendment process, just "boo-hoo we're being persecuted" or "OMG, if we allow this the boogeyman will get our kids.
Aren't both sides a little off track as far as the main question right now?
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Both sides of the issue have set up camp and increasingly become more and more antagonistic with people who have no opinion on the issue. This is pure politics to the extreme....bullying, intimidate, and finally exclude...it's a very nasty subject. If you oppose it or supportive you're wrong depending on who you ask.
Friends, family and workers of mine just avoid it. We're more worry about the current bankrupt of the state and the coming elections....jobs are more important at this time for California...we're practically a Welfare state. Prop 8 is like juggling nitro inside a bumping road.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on Feb 12th, 2010 at 07:00 PM
That may be the ultimate reason behind the push for gay marriage, but in court situations they need a legal reason to overturn a law. Before the initiative the court said it was unconstitutional, so the traditional marriage people pushed an initiative to amend the constitution. Now the suit is trying to overturn that and I'm pretty sure I remember them saying that the issue they're using to do so is that amendments to the constitution of the state of California must start in the legislature if they are substantive changes to the constitution. The argument should be over whether or not this is a substantial change to the constitution, or something that the people can vote on.
I believe your right, but I think the court declined to hear it at the time. All these challenges really should have been taken care of before the initiative. I half think the judges were hoping the people would vote "no" so that they wouldn't have to make any decisions.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 12th, 2010 06:50 PM
