Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

[stephanie]

this is what Democrats think of the people and voting..

Opponents contend that a ban on gay marriage can only be done by a revision of the state Constitution involving the Legislature. The Prop. 8 campaign leader calls the effort 'a Hail Mary.'
By Dan Morain
November 11, 2008
Reporting from Sacramento -- Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend.

With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Proposition 8 had 52.3% of the vote to 47.7%. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.

"The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities," the legislators said in the document, written by attorneys at the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.


"This is a Hail Mary, no question about it," said Frank Schubert, manager of the Proposition 8 campaign.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's office would be obligated to defend the initiative. But Schubert said that if the high court agrees to hear the case, backers of the initiative would seek to intervene to defend it.

In their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a "bare majority," and said it was "compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."

read it all..
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriage11-2008nov11,0,2507607.story

[5stringJeff]

Things like this are why I hate California.

[avatar4321]

The people dont matter. There is no point having elections anymore if those in power are just going to usurp our decisions.

[YamiB.]

Should they just ignore that they have a different method of changing the Constitution which very well may been the proper course for Prop 8? If prop 8 fails because it should have been done as a constitutional revision they have nobody to blame for themselves by using the wrong method of changing the constitution.

[Immanuel]

Should they just ignore that they have a different method of changing the Constitution which very well may been the proper course for Prop 8? If prop 8 fails because it should have been done as a constitutional revision they have nobody to blame for themselves by using the wrong method of changing the constitution.

There are multiple ways to change the laws in California. If the legislature will not do as the people want the people have the right to do it through a Prop. The California Constitution was set up that way for a reason. Should the people just ignore it?

Immie

[YamiB.]

There are multiple ways to change the laws in California. If the legislature will not do as the people want the people have the right to do it through a Prop. The California Constitution was set up that way for a reason. Should the people just ignore it?

Immie

It was not set up so that the two methods can be used interchangeably. The more stringent method of constitutional revision must be used in certain cases where a proposition would not be enough. All I have been able to find with so far is that revision must be used in larger changes to the constitution. So far I haven't been able to find something from California that gives a more specific limit on when you must switch from the use of propositions to revisions.

[manu1959]

lets see ....the argument is..... the proposition voted upon by the people to ammend the constitution was not legal......

two things....why was it allowed on the ballot......and bet ya it would be considered valid if it was the other way around......

[Nukeman]

It was not set up so that the two methods can be used interchangeably. The more stringent method of constitutional revision must be used in certain cases where a proposition would not be enough. All I have been able to find with so far is that revision must be used in larger changes to the constitution. So far I haven't been able to find something from California that gives a more specific limit on when you must switch from the use of propositions to revisions.
regardless the voting population of the stae have spoken! IS California part of a democracy or not? If the public VOTED and it passed than thats it. If they want to hold another vote to attempt to repeal than that is fine as well. I think the homosexual groups of California don't want to go that route because they feel they will probably lose, so instead they are attempting to change the laws by circumventing the process of MAJORITY rule.....:poke:

[Nukeman]

lets see ....the argument is..... the proposition voted upon by the people to ammend the constitution was not legal......

two things....why was it allowed on the ballot......and bet ya it would be considered valid if it was the other way around......
Oh hell ya it would have been and the straight heteroswxuals of the stae would have just been told "TOUGH SHIT IT PASSED" and they would have to deal with it....

[Immanuel]

It was not set up so that the two methods can be used interchangeably. The more stringent method of constitutional revision must be used in certain cases where a proposition would not be enough. All I have been able to find with so far is that revision must be used in larger changes to the constitution. So far I haven't been able to find something from California that gives a more specific limit on when you must switch from the use of propositions to revisions.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If it was not used to allow the people to change the Constitution then why was it set up?

That is like doing all the work to build the New Yankee Stadium in New York and then saying that no baseball can be played in the stadium.

Immie

[Yurt]

lets see ....the argument is..... the proposition voted upon by the people to ammend the constitution was not legal......

two things....why was it allowed on the ballot......and bet ya it would be considered valid if it was the other way around......

how true, makes me wonder though, did the left remain silent in order to see what would happen and if "no" won, then nothing, but if "yes" won then they may have a good set up to take this to SCOTUS

[krisy]

this is freaking unreal. Government just stomping right over what the people want. I guess these Democrats didn't hear the message when America made it clear during the bailout bill that we don't want government interference.

[5stringJeff]

this is freaking unreal. Government just stomping right over what the people want. I guess these Democrats didn't hear the message when America made it clear during the bailout bill that we don't want government interference.

No, it's that the Left didn't hear the message they wanted to hear.

[krisy]

No, it's that the Left didn't hear the message they wanted to hear.


Exactly.