[QUOTE=mlees]
A Living Document indeed.
Wiki says that the California Constitution had been modified over 500 times since it was first written.
[/QUOTE]
On the plus side of that, though, doesn’t about half the electorate decide that there are too many propositions or amendments every time a new one comes up and vote “no” on general principles?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
On the plus side of that, though, doesn’t about half the electorate decide that there are too many propositions or amendments every time a new one comes up and vote “no” on general principles?
[/QUOTE]
I often do. Most of them are dumb-ass ideas by people who always think “there oughta be a law…”. If I can’t understand what the proposition is trying to do after reading the description on the ballot once, then it gets a “no”.
Forgive the ignorance of an Englishman, can this decision be appealed to the US Supreme Court or is it purely an internal state matter?
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
Forgive the ignorance of an Englishman, can this decision be appealed to the US Supreme Court or is it purely an internal state matter?
[/QUOTE]
Every state has its own Constitution that often mimics the federal constitution. The state Supreme Court made its ruling on applying the law of the state Constitution. It’s a state matter.
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
Forgive the ignorance of an Englishman, can this decision be appealed to the US Supreme Court or is it purely an internal state matter?
[/QUOTE]
It can only be appealed to the Supreme Court if the law violates something in the Federal Constitution. Right now, there’s nothing in the Federal Constitution that forbids gay marriage, so there’s no standing for anyone to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
Forgive the ignorance of an Englishman, can this decision be appealed to the US Supreme Court or is it purely an internal state matter?
[/QUOTE]
It seems to be an internal state matter.
If my understanding of my state’s constitution is correct, and I’m not saying it is, then California can amend its constitution with 50% of the popular vote but it requires a 2/3 legislative majority just to pass an annual budget.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
John McCain couldn’t have asked for a better present. The anti-gay bigots are now officially mobilized for the fall.
[/QUOTE]
Doubt it. Both McCain and Obama voted against the FMA. McCain opposes it on a federalist basis–it should be left up to the states. Besides, I think wedge issues like SSM have a shelf life; they outrage fewer and fewer people each election cycle.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Never know. Got shot down by the voters in Arizona, and there’s people (on this board, even) who just love to talk about how bigotted Arizonans are. I guess we hate Mexicans and love gays.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s be fair. It was shot down in AZ because we were bombarded with ads about nice, middle-aged heterosexual couples who were in danger of losing their domestic partnership benefits. I never ONCE saw an ad in opposition to the prop where they tackled the gay issue. I’m glad we shot it down, but ashamed that we had to hide SSM in order to do it.
The state court struck down a state statute prohibiting SSM because the state statute violated the state Constitution. If the state court went the other way and upheld the statute, the plaintiffs could try to take the issue to federal courts claiming the state statute violates the federal Constitution. The US Supreme Court could strike the state statute down as a violation of the federal Constitution.
[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]
If my understanding of my state’s constitution is correct, and I’m not saying it is, then California can amend its constitution with 50% of the popular vote but it requires a 2/3 legislative majority just to pass an annual budget.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, but IIRC, it takes a 2/3 legislative vote to get an item on the ballot via the legislature.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
The state court struck down a state statute prohibiting SSM because the state statute violated the state Constitution. If the state court went the other way and upheld the statute, the plaintiffs could try to take the issue to federal courts claiming the state statute violates the federal Constitution. The US Supreme Court could strike the state statute down as a violation of the federal Constitution.
[/QUOTE]
They could, but I’d be shocked if the SCOTUS overturned the state law.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
They could, but I’d be shocked if the SCOTUS overturned the state law.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I was talking more about the operation of law than anything else.
[QUOTE=malkavia]
Let’s be fair. It was shot down in AZ because we were bombarded with ads about nice, middle-aged heterosexual couples who were in danger of losing their domestic partnership benefits. I never ONCE saw an ad in opposition to the prop where they tackled the gay issue. I’m glad we shot it down, but ashamed that we had to hide SSM in order to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Wow…you and I must be on totally different mailing lists, because that’s not what I recall at all!
But yes to some extent you’re correct, plus there were other provisions attached to it, but the SSM portion was never hidden - it was the primary focus. It was always the “gay marriage ban bill.” You can’t sneak that through.
Now, we’ll see what happens this November when they try to streamline it.
[QUOTE=Miller]
It can only be appealed to the Supreme Court if the law violates something in the Federal Constitution. Right now, there’s nothing in the Federal Constitution that forbids gay marriage, so there’s no standing for anyone to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
[/QUOTE]
This is not quite correct. For either side to appeal to the US Supreme Court, one side or the other would already have had to have asserted that the law in question violated some provision of the federal Constitution. Litigants can’t, after basing their cases entirely on state law and the state constitution may not, after losing at the state supreme court level, suddenly declare that there’s a federal constitutional violation and try for another bite at the apple.
Regardless, SCOTUS has already ruled that laws restricting marriage to mixed-sex couples do not violate the US Constitution.
[QUOTE=Miller]
It can only be appealed to the Supreme Court if the law violates something in the Federal Constitution. Right now, there’s nothing in the Federal Constitution that forbids gay marriage, so there’s no standing for anyone to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
[/QUOTE]
It could be challenged as violating the 14th amendment, just as was done in Loving v Virginia. I think they’d lose, but I don’t know if they’d be denied standing.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As I read his post, he’s saying what you surmise. People often argue against a state constitutional amendment by saying, “It’s already against the law; why do we also need a constitutional amendment?” This decision answers that: because a mere law can be overturn by judicial action; a constitutional amendment is not so vulnerable.
I am a bit torn about this. This needs to come from the people, not the courts.
But the only thing that can “come from the people” now is an amendment banning same-sex marriage, and that’s a huge step backwards.
Perhaps what needs to “come from the people” is a failed attempt at an amendment banning SSM, thus demonstrating that the populace favors this change.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is what I meant. I didn’t want to start another “Let’s Debate Same Sex Marriage” thread, but I did want to point out exactly what Bricker said..
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It could be challenged as violating the 14th amendment, just as was done in Loving v Virginia. I think they’d lose, but I don’t know if they’d be denied standing.
[/QUOTE]
How could today’s decision that the California ban violated the state constitution be considered a violation of the 14th ammendment?
[QUOTE=Miller]
How could today’s decision that the California ban violated the state constitution be considered a violation of the 14th ammendment?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I misread the question. For some stupid reason I thought you guys were talking about a state law, not this court decision.
Anyway, you are correct-- the Feds would not get involved in interpreting a state constitution unless there was some violation of the federal constitution. In this case, there is none. This will be a battle between the CA court, the CA legislature and whatever interest groups decide to fight things within the state of CA.
There oughtta be an initiative to amend the state Constitution to make it harder to amend the state Constitution.
Yeah, I don’t like the idea that a simple majority can change the constitution. The bar needs to be set higher-- 2/3 or something like that.
I figure our chance to take a bite out of the CA budget deficit is to jack up the marriage license fee. What with all the same sex couples rushing to get married before the voters have a chance to vote in the constitutional amendment …