Friday, November 07, 2008

Some Thoughts On Legal Challenges To Prop 8

Challenges that would, in effect, declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. I don't know if even leftist judges are insane enough to try this. Especially on behalf of a tiny sliver of a minority.

From the comments to this Volokh post:

Group sues in court to prevent the voters from exercising their power to 'correct' the court's interpretation of the constitution and reverse a decision of that Court granting the group their personal red pen over the English language.

'Mommy, Daddy says I can't take the car out Friday night even though you said I could... Make him stop!'

Can't you just smell the fear? The petulance?

I wonder how the court will decide? I think they'll side-step the issue for fear of pitchforks.


If you are presented with the spectacle of the CA Supreme Court changing the law, then disallowing the people from amending their constitution to restore the law as it was, it becomes more difficult to suppose we still have a government answerable to the people.

Mario Savio's words echo down through the decades:

There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

Good thing the Justices in California have to face the voters periodically. This wouldn't be the first time they've gone too far and the people have had to take corrective measures.


LA Brave, are you saying that it would be legal to have an amendment creating same-sex marriage, but not an amendment abolishing it? Are there some amendments that cannot be repealed under any circumstances?


If the people of California voted for same sex marriage, I'm sure you would consider it valid and binding until the end of time. That's one of the problems, the elites keep trying to tell us that we can vote yes, but we can't vote no.

Maybe the people will toss a few justices overboard, maybe they won't. They've done it before and it changed the character of the court for over a decade, making it much more conservative. Even those that don't care much about gay marriage can detect an abuse of power if the Supreme Court decides its judgement on gay marriage can't be challenged by the people.


People weren't told to do anything follwing the In re Marriages decision.

Yes, they were. The People were told that a Constitution that was enacted more than 100 years ago by the People of the State of California meant to provide a fundamental right to homosexual so-called "marriage" even though at the time homosexual activity was a felony. I didn't realize that the People were so adept in doublethink.

You can continue living your life unaffected. Nothing's changed for you. You don't have to accept gay marriage.

I don't? Well then, I guess I'll start an adoption agency. Oh, wait, that'll affect me. Maybe I'll run a dormatory for married couples in college. Oops! That'll affect me too. Maybe then, I'll just become a wedding photographer. Wait, nope, that'll get me also.

Moreover than that, homosexual "marriage" is another example of cultural degeneracy. It affects the culture I live in. Homosexual "marriage" basically destroys motherhood and fatherhood, and hence, destroys family. It says there is nothing important in having both a mother and a father for children.

What you (and others) are mad about is that fact that the Court has protected a minority from the will of some people (who you will wrongfully consider a majority) to oppress it. You see, DangerMouse, it is YOU who wants to assert your tyranny over others, not the Court.

I suppose then that the polygamists and the necrophiliacs and the bestialitsts have similar claims for protection, then?


MPP, I did not say that contracts are somehow weaker when they are made with the knowledge that the law might change. I am saying that all those who enter a same-sex marriage contract are doing so with the understanding that a Nov. election may terminate the contract. If they want their contract to survive the Nov. election, then they have the opportunity to get a domestic partnership. If they choose not to get a domestic partnership, then they are voluntarily agreeing to get their contract terminated in Nov, if the vote goes that way.

People often sign contracts that allow external events to terminate the contract. It would really be wrong for a court to extend a contract when it is supposed to be terminated.


[T]here is this question: what are the limits of governmental power?

Any government powerful enough to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals is also powerful to require it. Right now, you know that this isn't likely, because homosexuals are so powerful. But you have created a dangerous precedent: that there are no limits to governmental power, and nothing is outside the realm of governmental authority to control in the pretended public interest.

What happens if the majority ever gets in control of the judiciary? Do you worry about the prospect that 3% of the population might suddenly find itself on the losing end? It has happened before (in fact, throughout most of the last few centuries). Homosexuals, in their pursuit of unlimited power over the government, have created a dangerous precedent for when the pendulum swings back.

No comments: