Prop 8?

The argument can be viewed here:

http://www.calchannel.com/

If you can't access the live webcast, the video will be placed in the archives.

Well, depending on the result, the people will know their elected officials ignored their voice and hopefully, vote them all out of office.

That's not going to happen. The later polls showed that the amendment would have failed if the vote were taken. California voters rapidly forget what they voted for or what persons testified in the court. Most of those are not elected officials.

California Supreme Court judges are appointed by the governor -- Ahnold is now in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883508,00.html?cnn=yes

That rationale defeats the entire purpose of placing the equal protection clause into the constitution in order to insulate the rights of minorities FROM the reach of majoritarian political power. If individual rights are held hostage to the whims of shifting majorities, then no one's rights are safe from tyranny & oppression and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law is no guarantee at all.

Obviously Debra. It was ever thus. If individual rights take precedence you have anarchy.

In a democracy there is a tyranny of the majority. All political power is inherent in the people which is why the people are to blame for the financial crisis.

NAACP Calls for Overturning of Prop. 8

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced support on Monday for California's supreme court to invalidate Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that constitutionally banned same-sex marriage in California.

The civil rights group not only wants the court to overturn Prop. 8 -- they want California's legislature to go on record against Prop. 8 as well.

"The NAACP's mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law," wrote NAACP CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous (pictured) in a letter to legislative leaders. "Our mission statement calls for the 'quality of rights of all persons.' Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California state supreme court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts -- assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority."

The California state conference of the NAACP has already filed briefs with the California supreme court in the legal challenge against the ballot initiative, which squeaked by with 52% of the vote. California's state court will begin hearing oral arguments to Prop. 8 on March 5.

"The NAACP has long opposed any proposal that would alter the federal or state constitutions for the purpose of excluding any groups or individuals from guarantees of equal protections," said NAACP chairman Julian Bond in a press release. "We urge the legislature to declare that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper protective process and should be overturned as an invalid alteration that vitiated crucial constitutional safeguards and fundamental American values, threatening civil rights and all vulnerable minorities."

Alexander Robinson, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, an LGBT rights organization, said that the letter represented forward movement for the NAACP. "It's consistent in that they have always opposed constitutional bans," he observed, "but I think that weighing in so clearly on an action that would have the effect of reinstituting marriage given that they still have not taken a position on gay marriage is a significant step forward." Robinson also anticipated that the national organization might get some pushback on the letter from local NAACP chapter.

End of quote

There are already petitions to put on the next election ballot a Proposition to essentially negate Prop 8. 2% is hardly a decisive majority to change a constitution and the pendulum has already swung back.

Any reservations about the size of the majority are equally justified from the other side's point of view.

The last I read, the California supreme court justices are hung between a democracy where the citizens are allowed to legislate on issues they feel are important to society and the Constitution's equal rights clause.

On the surface, it seems like a very simple issue; equal rights should supersede the majority vote. I thought discrimination against minorities were old issues.

In other words, as Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the rest feared -- the rabble will determine who they want to take rights from (why not have Federal propostions?) Our Republic is a poor democracy -- on one hand it asks the voters to pick the best person, but it's usually an attorney or a businessman who has been unsuccessful in the private sector, on the other had, we have California's propositions (is this anything like luring in a sex partner?) A governor should be able to veto a proposition just as easily as he vetoes a law from the legislature. Then, it should be put back on the ballot and a 2/3rds majority required to make it a law, or an alteration of the constitution. I think the best case is that the voters should not be able to rewrite the constitution of a state no more than they can rewrite the Federal constitution. Period.

The "will" of the people is pretty weak at 2% That's a margin of error.

Me too. The California system apparently doesn't have any of the safeguards that our federal forefathers found absolutely essential to secure individual liberty. If the California Supreme Court is unable to protect minorities against majoritarian oppression, then their state constitution is a worthless piece of paper.

I thought that was an objectivist conservative's viewpoint -- the right of the individual. Ayn Rand was a free enterprise advocate and in "The Fountainhead" specifically pointed out that the majority (or the mob that read the newspaper in the novel) did not have the right to bastardize an individual's creative rights. But I guess it's only important to them if it's guns, damn all those other individual rights.

Absolutely. There is a huge disconnect between the ideology and the practice. Those who claim to be conservatives--those who claim to be the advocates of individual rights--are the ones who vote to deprive others of their rights. They don't care about the hypocrisy so long as they can abuse the power of the state to kick the gays (or some other "hated" minority) or shove their religious beliefs down our throats.

Goes to show how dangerous some people's belief system can be; whether it's political or religious.

They get to the point where the realize that the gay community is made up of individuals, some activists but most not, and when the image of sex comes up in their mind's eye, they repel. Well, get the picture of your parents or grandparents having sex in your head -- should they have any rights taken away?

I remember as kids some would say "my parents don't have sex."

Do they actually know that, or just get sent out on errands or to the cinema, while Mom and Dad do it? Worst yet to most people is Granddad and Grandma envisioned under the sheets (or perhaps over them) with the help of Viagra. It's just sex -- relax. It's now suppose to be a freedom in one's private home, although I have met people who have been caught in an elevator. As if straight people don't perform sodomy. Yeah, right.

Yes I agree the single people of CA gay opr straight should be protected from the gay couples wish to enjoy benefits at their expense for having sex.

Naive and ignorance covers most of it - even for adults.