Re: Same-Sex Marriages
The real issues are the people’s initiative and right to vote, and federalism. . . . The people have rights too, and ought to have a say in how marriage is be defined in California. Supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not discriminatory towards same-sex couples. Everyone should receive rights and protections under the law. However one activist group should not be unfairly favored over the entire voting body. . . .
The right to vote does not include the right to discriminate based upon an animus toward a particular group or class of persons.
You can call gay people "activists" if you want -- if that makes you feel better to put a label on them -- but they are human beings who simply want to be free of discrimination and to enjoy the same rights that all other members of society enjoy.
When you put human beings in chains (or in closets), eventually they speak out against the injustice. They have a right (protected by the First Amendment) to petition their government for redress of their grievances.
You make conclusory statements, but conclusions are not facts.
The equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (applicable to the federal government) and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (applicable to state government) constitutionally protects the rights of all persons to equal protection of the law.
Do those "mainstream" value-laden voters want the blacks to sit in separate transit cars or at the back of the bus and attend separate schools? It doesn't matter what they want. Black people have a constitutionally-protected right to participate equally in society.
What about mixed-raced marriages? Hmmmm. NOPE. Those mainstream value-laden voters can't stop the blacks from marrying white people.
And so goes the battle for equal rights.
Your conclusion that the state domestic partnership law gives same-sex couples pretty much the same rights . . . well, not the same rights, but darn near the same rights . . . as those given to married couples defies United States Supreme Court precedent established in Brown v. Board Education wherein the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson was abolished as unconstitutional.
The "separate but equal" doctrine (which was always "separate" but never "equal") was unconstitutional discrimination THEN and it's unconstitutional discrimination NOW.
Cry about voter rights all you want, but THE MOB -- the voters -- cannot trump the constitution. PERIOD.
Neither a state legislature nor Congress can trump the constitution. PERIOD.
The constitution is supreme.