The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[kaz]

Can you show me the basis for your argument that our country is unisex under the law?

I have made no such basis for my argument.

Yes you did, you keep arguing that I can't marry the same people women can. Men and women can both enter into man/woman marriages, neither can enter into single sex marriage. This is not like the military, there are simply two sexes.

We're talking only about government marriage anyway. Government can decide who government recognizes as married. We need to get away from the idiocy that government decides who is and is not married, not expand it.

The can treat the sexes differently, however as a function of law

Government isn't treating the sexes differently in marriage. Your examples, like combat are what men can do and women can't. This isn't like that. All men and women can enter in a man/woman relationship. If Men could marry men and women not marry women there might be an argument, but that isn't the case. That is why I used the term unisex, not equal. Clearly marriage currently is equal between the sexes, it is not unisex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes you did,...

No I didn't, go back and review the posts. You have the once that claims I'm making a unisex argument.

I'm not.

I'm saying the government must have a reason though when it is trying to discriminate against it's citizens.

That is not the same thing.

We're talking only about government marriage anyway. Government can decide who government recognizes as married.

Worked well for Virginia and all the other states that didn't want to recognize interracial marriages didn't it?


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

What's wrong with this is the whole concept that people are arguing about courts dictatorial rulings at all. Gay marriage should be legal when the people elect legislatures to create it. Judges who make up law are criminals. With the attitude of the young, gay marriage would eventually be legal even without the crimes being committed by judges to circumvent the people and decree it. The process of circumventing our Constitution is in itself a great threat to and undermining of our liberty. The concept that judges can make law allows them to continue to make laws, and the belief that judges with that sort of power will only use that power for the benefit of the people is as asinine as that any other dictator will in the long run act in the interest of the people.

Yeah fags...you'll get equality when Kaz and friends think you deserve it, not before!

Damn activist judges that ruled in Loving overstepped their authority too. Don't get me started on Brown v Education!

Loving and Brown are irrelevant to gay marriage, they both involved people being treated differently.

If Steve is like me but black, Loving and Brown were both cases where Steve was treated differently than me. You still haven't been able to name a single thing where if Steve is like me but gay that the law is applied any differently to us.

You've failed, utterly and profoundly. So you just keep going back to that gay Steve wants something different than me, which is irrelevant to logic and the law.

You're owned.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what you base it on. I cannot legally marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice because that person is of the same gender. How is it different than not being to marry the race you want to because they aren't the right color?

 

[kaz]

Yes you did,...

No I didn't, go back and review the posts. You have the once that claims I'm making a unisex argument.

I'm not.

I accepted your challenge and you lost. You did.

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what you base it on. I cannot legally marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice because that person is of the same gender. How is it different than not being to marry the race you want to because they aren't the right color?

Read the discussion I had with worldwatcher. If you want to build on the argument, I'm there. If you just want me to repeat it as you're asking here, I'll pass.

 

[Seawytch]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what you base it on. I cannot legally marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice because that person is of the same gender. How is it different than not being to marry the race you want to because they aren't the right color?

Read the discussion I had with worldwatcher. If you want to build on the argument, I'm there. If you just want me to repeat it as you're asking here, I'll pass.

I did. You didn't not adequately support your claim that my not being able to marry the person I love because they are the wrong gender is any different than being denied marriage to the wrong color.

 

[kaz]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what you base it on. I cannot legally marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice because that person is of the same gender. How is it different than not being to marry the race you want to because they aren't the right color?

Read the discussion I had with worldwatcher. If you want to build on the argument, I'm there. If you just want me to repeat it as you're asking here, I'll pass.

I did. You didn't not adequately support your claim that my not being able to marry the person I love because they are the wrong gender is any different than being denied marriage to the wrong color.

So go to that answer and build on it rather than just re-asking the question.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes you did,...

No I didn't, go back and review the posts. You have the once that claims I'm making a unisex argument.

I'm not.

I accepted your challenge and you lost. You did.

You still haven't been able to name a single thing where if Steve is like me but gay that the law is applied any differently to us.

You've failed, utterly and profoundly. So you just keep going back to that gay Steve wants something different than me, which is irrelevant to logic and the law.

You're owned.

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

Now I've added what I was responding to. It was in answer to your question.

I have not claimed the law must be "unisex" if you review the posts that is your application of a strawman (stating an argument not claimed by the other and then arguing against that).

I've repeatedly noted that the government CAN discrimination, but only when (if challenged) if it can provide a compelling government interest in doing so. Even providing an example of where it can be justified and one where it can't.

I even challenged you to articulate such a compelling reason as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, adults should be treated differently by the government and you wouldn't supply such justification.



You can claim p'ownage in an infantile manner all you want but the posts are for any to read. Claims of "fail" and being "owned" I've found are rarely accurate, but more often used when running out logic.

>>>>

 

[kaz]

No I didn't, go back and review the posts. You have the once that claims I'm making a unisex argument.

I'm not.

I accepted your challenge and you lost. You did.

If you are the same but you are female and Steve is male and there is a another person, call him David.

You as a female can marry David but Steve cannot. That is different treatment.



>>>>

Now I've added what I was responding to. It was in answer to your question.

I have not claimed the law must be "unisex" if you review the posts that is your application of a strawman (stating an argument not claimed by the other and then arguing against that).

I've repeatedly noted that the government CAN discrimination, but only when (if challenged) if it can provide a compelling government interest in doing so. Even providing an example of where it can be justified and one where it can't.

I even challenged you to articulate such a compelling reason as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, adults should be treated differently by the government and you wouldn't supply such justification.



You can claim p'ownage in an infantile manner all you want but the posts are for any to read.

>>>>

Now you're just word parsing.

You said it was discrimination because men and women cannot marry the same people. Men and women can both enter into a man/woman marriage. That is not discrimination unless you're arguing the law must treat us as unisex creatures.

Your argument that government can discriminate with compelling reason does not contradict my point that government is not discriminating. The men and women, gays and straights, all have the same rights, to enter into a man/woman marriage with anyone of their choosing. It's not discrimination for any reason because it's not discrimination.

I also find the argument that government can discriminate if it's in the compelling interest of government to be a bit chilling, but I'm trying to focus on the one issue. I think the standard should be the interest of the people, not government.

As for this, if it is in the interest of the people to allow the definition of marriage to be expanded by eliminating gender, it is in the people's interest to have the legislature, which is elected by them to do it. It is not in their interest to have dictators decree it for the obvious reason that dictators will continue to dictate. That would be winning the battle (assuming it is to be done) and losing the war.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I accepted your challenge and you lost. You did.

Now I've added what I was responding to. It was in answer to your question.

I have not claimed the law must be "unisex" if you review the posts that is your application of a strawman (stating an argument not claimed by the other and then arguing against that).

I've repeatedly noted that the government CAN discrimination, but only when (if challenged) if it can provide a compelling government interest in doing so. Even providing an example of where it can be justified and one where it can't.

I even challenged you to articulate such a compelling reason as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, adults should be treated differently by the government and you wouldn't supply such justification.



You can claim p'ownage in an infantile manner all you want but the posts are for any to read.

>>>>

Now you're just word parsing.

I'm expressing my opinion.

It helps the discussion if you address my opinion in stead of trying to inject a stawman and then argue against that.

You said it was discrimination because men and women cannot marry the same people.

Of course it's discrimination.

"Discriminate:: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit"​

The government is allowed to when there is a valid compelling interest for treating like groups differently. On one hand we have law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult heterosexuals (different-sex couples) and on the other we have law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult homosexuals (same-sex couples) - two like situated groups. One is allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states) and one is barred from Civil Marriage (in most states).

Men and women can both enter into a man/woman marriage. That is not discrimination unless you're arguing the law must treat us as unisex creatures.

Which is the same structure of the argument presented by the Commonwealth of Virginia to uphold it's anti-interracial ban. Blacks could marry. Whites could marry. Just not each other. Therefore there is no discrimination.

That argument didn't work then either and more and more people understand it makes no sense now.

Your argument that government can discriminate with compelling reason does not contradict my point that government is not discriminating.

Sure it does. The issue isn't whether the government is discriminating it is. The issue is - "is there a compelling government issue to warrant the unequal treatment of the two similar groups."

Examples:

#1 - Blind people are discriminated against by not issuing them drivers licenses to operate a multi-ton vehicle at high rates of speed on public roads. The compelling government reason is that they present a clear and present danger to other motorists on the road.

#2 - Homosexuals are discriminated against by not issuing them Civil Marriage licenses to establish a family relationship with another individual of the same gender. the compelling government reason is ______________________________. Please fill in the blank that uniquely justifies the difference in treatment of couples that are both law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, and adult.​

The men and women, gays and straights, all have the same rights, to enter into a man/woman marriage with anyone of their choosing. It's not discrimination for any reason because it's not discrimination.

Sure it is. See the definition above.

I also find the argument that government can discriminate if it's in the compelling interest of government to be a bit chilling, but I'm trying to focus on the one issue. I think the standard should be the interest of the people, not government.

If you mean "interest of the people" as individuals, homosexuals are people, it is their interest to be able to establish the same legal relationships that are available to heterosexuals

If you mean "interest of the people" is that if the majority were to vote away someones rights (such as equal treatment under the) then do you disagree with the Loving decision since in the late 1960's many state had Constitutional bans against interracial marriage and those bans were voted on by the people. During that time interracial marriage wouldn't have passed in most states at the polls. As a matter of fact it wasn't until 2000 that Alabama voted to amend it Constitution to remove the language and 40% of the vote was to retain it.

As for this, if it is in the interest of the people to allow the definition of marriage to be expanded by eliminating gender, it is in the people's interest to have the legislature, which is elected by them to do it. It is not in their interest to have dictators decree it for the obvious reason that dictators will continue to dictate. That would be winning the battle (assuming it is to be done) and losing the war.

I agree, I'd much rather have the issue resolved by the legislature or direct ballot. That doesn't mean I don't understand the Constitutional issues involved in non-justified discrimination by the government.

Take for example Prop 8 (CA 2008) and Question 1 (ME 2009). Both passed to disallow SSCM by only 2.5%. Activists in California choose the court route, although that was not popular with some of the larger pro-SSCM organizations. The result was that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and SSCM resumed in CA. On the other hand Maine disapproved on SSCM in 2009 and organizers commenced a grassroots campaign of talking to people to influence views. The result was that Maine repealed the law in 2012 and SSCM started. If CA had gone for repeal instead of a court challenge they (a) would have gotten SSCM back quicker, and (b) the movement would have reaped great public perception benefits.

But that's JMHO, it doesn't change what happened or the validity of the legal challenges.

The SCOTUS "punted" on Prop 8 with the "standing" decision. They vacated the 9th's ruling but did not vacate the District Courts ruling, leaving Prop 8 as invalid even after the CA Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 did have standing to defend the state law. They crafted a "punt" ruling not to address the core question, they won't be able to dodge much longer. In 3-5 years they will pretty much be required to accept a case on the core issue.


*********************

You may have the last word of the evening. I have to go workout and then my wife and I have a movie date and popcorn on tap from OnDemand.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I accepted your challenge and you lost. You did.

Now I've added what I was responding to. It was in answer to your question.

I have not claimed the law must be "unisex" if you review the posts that is your application of a strawman (stating an argument not claimed by the other and then arguing against that).

I've repeatedly noted that the government CAN discrimination, but only when (if challenged) if it can provide a compelling government interest in doing so. Even providing an example of where it can be justified and one where it can't.

I even challenged you to articulate such a compelling reason as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, adults should be treated differently by the government and you wouldn't supply such justification.



You can claim p'ownage in an infantile manner all you want but the posts are for any to read.

>>>>

Now you're just word parsing.

You said it was discrimination because men and women cannot marry the same people. Men and women can both enter into a man/woman marriage. That is not discrimination unless you're arguing the law must treat us as unisex creatures.

Your argument that government can discriminate with compelling reason does not contradict my point that government is not discriminating. The men and women, gays and straights, all have the same rights, to enter into a man/woman marriage with anyone of their choosing. It's not discrimination for any reason because it's not discrimination.

I also find the argument that government can discriminate if it's in the compelling interest of government to be a bit chilling, but I'm trying to focus on the one issue. I think the standard should be the interest of the people, not government.

As for this, if it is in the interest of the people to allow the definition of marriage to be expanded by eliminating gender, it is in the people's interest to have the legislature, which is elected by them to do it. It is not in their interest to have dictators decree it for the obvious reason that dictators will continue to dictate. That would be winning the battle (assuming it is to be done) and losing the war.

When a law is predicated on a compelling governmental interest pursuant to a legitimate legislative end, it does not ‘discriminate’:

“By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”
Romer v. Evans (1996)

Our civil liberties are inalienable, but not absolute.

The issue of Proposition 8 concerns a state’s desire to disallow same-sex couples from accessing a law they’re otherwise eligible to access.

That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and why most perceive the case incorrectly. The popular, and incorrect, perception is that same-sex couples are attempting to access marriage contracts that they’re not eligible to enter into, and marriage law must be ‘changed’ to accommodate same-sex couples – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

As the plaintiffs in Perry successfully argued, marriage is a contract between two equal partners, the doctrine of coverture long ago abandoned. No one is arguing the law must treat us as ‘unisex creatures.’ Rather, the law correctly and consistently maintains that gender is not a legitimate basis upon which to establish a criterion necessary for the marriage contract to be executed, because, again, marriage law no longer acknowledges gender roles in the context of marriage.

Consequently, the definition of marriage is not being ‘expanded’; indeed, allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law both comports with the definition of marriage and reinforces the fundamental intent of marriage: to acknowledge a contract of commitment between two equal partners.

Given these facts, one can see why Proposition 8 was invalidated by the courts, as such measures seek only to deny same-couples the equal protection of California’s marriage law, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment:

“A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.” Ibid.

 

[kaz]

Of course it's discrimination.

"Discriminate:: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit"​

This is what you're trying to bull doze, dynamite, side step, whatever you can do to get past because it's the Achilles heel in your argument. The darned thing just won't go away. And the rest of your argument falls apart because you can't get past it. Man/woman marriage does not discriminate against gays.

Straight or gay, you can enter into a man woman relationship. There is no discrimination. Your definition shows no discrimination.
- If straight men could marry men or straight women could marry women, you'd have an argument.
- If men could marry men but women could not marry women or vice versa you'd have an argument.
- If men or women had more rights in a marriage, you'd have an argument.

None of those are true, everyone has the same right.

Loving is not applicable because men could only marry some women and women could only marry some men. And your argument the courts can decree otherwise because the courts said they can decree otherwise is circular and irrelevant. The courts cannot grant themselves legitimate power. Brown is out for the same reason as loving.

You can't create discrimination which is not there, and you can't move past it and just say whatever. It makes the rest of your argument, which is based on non-existent discrimination out.

There is a solution. Follow the law and convince people to elect a legislature to enact it. That is the only legitimate source of gay marriage. Follow the Constitution. Judges are not dictators and they are not there to give you shortcuts.

 

[kaz]

“A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.” Ibid.

Makes sense. It's irrelevant to the argument of gay marriage though since gays have the same access to marriage as straights do. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage.

Gong!

 

[Silhouette]

“A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.” Ibid.

Makes sense. It's irrelevant to the argument of gay marriage though since gays have the same access to marriage as straights do. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage.

Gong!

And neither can enter into polygamy. Which is the natural legal cousin of gay marriage. And will follow within 10 years of any passing of gay marriage in any state.

Currenly both are illegal in California. And the CA constitution reflects that:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

 

[WorldWatcher]

Currenly both are illegal in California. And the CA constitution reflects that:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Actually only polygamy is illegal in California, Article 1 Sec 7.5 was ruled unconstitutional, a decision the SCOTUS did not vacate (which means it remains the operative decision), therefore Civil Marriage by members of the same sex is legal.

So Loving v. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, between 1967-2000 the State of Alabama maintained its interracial ban in it's State Constitution. Does that mean that even though such bans were ruled unconstitutional that for that period interracial marriage remained illegal in Alabama?



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Actually only polygamy is illegal in California, Article 1 Sec 7.5 was ruled unconstitutional, a decision the SCOTUS did not vacate (which means it remains the operative decision), therefore Civil Marriage by members of the same sex is legal.

So Loving v. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, between 1967-2000 the State of Alabama maintained its interracial ban in it's State Constitution. Does that mean that even though such bans were ruled unconstitutional that for that period interracial marriage remained illegal in Alabama?

Race and behavior are not the same thing. Not even close. If you establish a precedent for behaviors to have class status, you set a precedent to unravel civil and penal laws across the country. ie: you establish a foundation under which our American Law System will begin to unravel.


You left out the most important part of your conclusion about CA law and gay marriage. You neglected to explain WHY the CA Constitution still has the language, unchanged, stating only a marriage between a man and a woman is lawful. You think activist CA Senator Leno would rest until that language was changed? Not on your life.

It isn't changed because he, AG Harris and Gov Brown all three know that tampering illegally with the CA constitution will get them on charges of sedition. Gay marriage is illegal in California. Period. Even they know when not to cross the line.. They are lawyers after all..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually only polygamy is illegal in California, Article 1 Sec 7.5 was ruled unconstitutional, a decision the SCOTUS did not vacate (which means it remains the operative decision), therefore Civil Marriage by members of the same sex is legal.

So Loving v. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, between 1967-2000 the State of Alabama maintained its interracial ban in it's State Constitution. Does that mean that even though such bans were ruled unconstitutional that for that period interracial marriage remained illegal in Alabama?

Race and behavior are not the same thing. Not even close. If you establish a precedent for behaviors to have class status, you set a precedent to unravel civil and penal laws across the country. ie: you establish a foundation under which our American Law System will begin to unravel.

Dodge.

Your statements are that because the section still appears on the California website because the voters have not voted to remove it, then it is still valid in California.

The voters in Alabama did not vote to remove their language for 33 years, using your logic then those interracial marriages are invalid.

Which of course we know is not true.

You left out the most important part of your conclusion about CA law and gay marriage. You neglected to explain WHY the CA Constitution still has the language, unchanged, stating only a marriage between a man and a woman is lawful. You think activist CA Senator Leno would rest until that language was changed? Not on your life.

False.

I've address it before, you simply choose to ignore it. This from Post #351...

Anyone is welcome to take $300-$500 and piss it down the toilet or to go to a responsible lawyer and have them explain it to them, but the outcome doesn’t change – Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal again in California.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].

Let me provide you with a couple of examples:

1. In 2003 the SCOTUS ruled that Sodomy laws were unconstitutional when applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Many State still have such laws on the books, they are however unenforceable because the law is unconstitutional. They remain on the books until such time as the legislature chooses to re-write the code. This also applies to the Federal law, private consensual Sodomy is legal – however Congress has yet to update the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10 of the United States Code § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy) to remove it from the books. The Military doesn’t enforce it though because they know it has been ruled unconstitutional. (10 USC § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute)

2. A second example. In 1967 the United States Supreme court ruled that statutory laws and State constitutional amendments that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. Those words may remain on paper in terms of what is written on paper, but they are not functional. Even though the decision was in 1967 it wasn’t until the year 2000 that Alabama decided to actually follow through and amend their constitution to remove the ban. So even though the words existed on paper, for the period 1967-2000, the were unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The sad part is that when the amendment to vote on removing the language went to the ballot, 40% of the voters still voted in support the banning language. (Alabama Interracial Marriage, Amendment 2 (2000) - Ballotpedia​

It isn't changed because he, AG Harris and Gov Brown all three know that tampering illegally with the CA constitution will get them on charges of sedition. Gay marriage is illegal in California. Period. Even they know when not to cross the line.. They are lawyers after all..

I hate to break the bad news must neither a politician, the AG, nor the Governor can summarily change the language of the State Constitution. That can only be removed, in this case, by it being put on the ballot and voted on. Whether the language remains or is removed in a future vote, the end result is the same - it is an invalid and unenforceable provision since the standing judicial decision was that it is unconstitutional.

It took Alabama 33 years to remove it's unconstitutional language - dude - it's only been 4 months since the final nail was driven into Prop 8 because of the final SCOTUS ruling that allowed it to remain overturned. There has been no action by the legislature to place the correction on the ballot and there hasn't even been a statewide election yet.

Have some patience. If it's not gone in 33 years, then get back to us.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I hate to break the bad news must neither a politician, the AG, nor the Governor can summarily change the language of the State Constitution. That can only be removed, in this case, by it being put on the ballot and voted on. Whether the language remains or is removed in a future vote, the end result is the same - it is an invalid and unenforceable provision since the standing judicial decision was that it is unconstitutional.

Put on the ballot? You mean, like a federally protected constitutional right of a consensus initiative defining marriage for the state of CA? An initiative like that? And when the 7 million voters there vote again to say "yes, we want that language preserved in our constitution" how will AG Harris, Gov Brown and their whip Senator Leno remove that decision from the People?

Newsflash: According to the Decision in the twin case to Prop 8 called the "DOMA" Decision, states since the founding of our nation have had the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage via consensus. There was no finding of people who practice the behavior called "homosexuality" as a special class exempt from this consensus. In fact, in the dicta, which can be cited to support other cases, gay marriage was described in New York as "allowed" and overall, allowed "only in some states" but not others. This means the US Supreme Court has effectively overruled any lower decision defining "gay" as a special class that is protected. Their saying each state gets to pick and choose on gay marriage means the Highest Interpretive Authority has deemed the right to say no to gay marriage is dominant to any "rights" to marriage gays believe they have.

ie: The right to say "no" to gay marriage is in all 50 states a protected right retroactive to the founding of the country. The ability to marry the same gender IS NOT a protected right in the 50 states.

The California constitution says in its preamble that it is subdominant in law to the US Constitution and its interpretations. So will you propose next that that language be changed? Because that's the only way so called "gay marriage" will be legal there. Until then, as now, it is illegal there. According to the same federal authorities and initiative system you cite as "reason" you allege instead that it is "legal".

 

[JakeStarkey]

the language, Sil, is unconstitutional, period

whether the language is changed matters not, because that part of the Cal constitution is invalid.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I hate to break the bad news must neither a politician, the AG, nor the Governor can summarily change the language of the State Constitution. That can only be removed, in this case, by it being put on the ballot and voted on. Whether the language remains or is removed in a future vote, the end result is the same - it is an invalid and unenforceable provision since the standing judicial decision was that it is unconstitutional.

Put on the ballot? You mean, like a federally protected constitutional right of a consensus initiative defining marriage for the state of CA? An initiative like that? And when the 7 million voters there vote again to say "yes, we want that language preserved in our constitution" how will AG Harris, Gov Brown and their whip Senator Leno remove that decision from the People?

Newsflash: According to the Decision in the twin case to Prop 8 called the "DOMA" Decision, states since the founding of our nation have had the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage via consensus. There was no finding of people who practice the behavior called "homosexuality" as a special class exempt from this consensus

When will you learn that it doesn't matter how many people vote for or against an issue if the result of that vote is deemed unconstitutional?

If you want that fact to change, then you need to change the Constitution.

Whether homosexuality is a special class or not is also irrelevant. The fact is, people can marry people, regardless of sex.