51% of California voters surveyed said they would oppose Proposition 8.
I suppose it’s too much to hope that some seismic activity causes California to break off from the rest of North America and convinces the people of California to declare independence. They could be the 21st century equivalent of Texas.
Tags:
I know your intent is not serious but, ..Actually, there was a story reported on the evening news some months ago that there is an asteroid headed toward earth that could potentially hit California, causing a huge tsuami.
Coincidence??? That would have had Jerry Falwell’s tongue wagging. (It would also leave me with a better record for prediction than Pat Robertson.)
Obviously, I support gay marriage and think the LDS Church’s incurion into this issue is unwise and prejudicial.
Using the apparatus of the state to enforce your own moral values on others is in my not so humble opinion an act of tyranny. But I do recall that I was wrong back in 1980 so it is possible I need to rethink things. 😉
What were you wrong about in 1980? (I wasn’t voting back then so perhaps there was something public I have forgotten about.)
As for the wisdom of religious incursion on this issue in California, I have made my position clear, but I would add that one of my major concerns with gay marriage in California is that I have no doubt that California will be used by gay marriage activists as an incubator to spread cases for legalizing gay marriage to the other 48 states. If it were not for that, I would be more prepared to say that this is an issue of states rights where I am not concerned in Utah about the choices made in California.
51% of Californians are probably going to vote no because those who want to vote yes have not given good enough reasons why gay marriage is such a threat to traditional marriage. The argument is unconvincing. More information is required, I’m afraid.
What I find interesting is that it has only been a couple of years since well over 51% of Californians voted yes to a resolution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. All they are really doing here is telling the courts not to overrule their previous vote.
This CA thing has some real, serious Constitutional issues.
The Privileges and Immunities clause says that the marriage is valid everywhere (this works when there is no fundamental conflict between the laws). The competing issue is that because each state is an independent sovereign, one state cannot pass laws in another. I can’t remember which clause it is off hand, I haven’t looked at it for three years now.
If CA says that any gay person can have a valid marriage in CA, then the rest of the nation is forced to recognize it under the P&I clause.
But, because other states have rejected CA’s notion of marriage, forcing other states to recognize the marriage would be the equivalent of enacting legislation in a foreign sovereign. By “foreign” I mean simply “states that are not California”.
My guess is this is going to the Supreme Court and I have no idea how it’s going to play out. There are two very powerful ideas at play here.
Carl,
Is the Privileges and Immunities (P&I) clause different from the Full Faith and Credit (FF&C) clause?
Either way, I figure it’s definitely going to the Supreme Court and they will be pitting the Defense of Marriage Act against P&I and/or FF&C.
Yes but at the moment I can’t remember why exactly. Maybe if I get real ambitious after the bar, I’ll look it up. Actually, Constitutional law is more depressing to me than tax law. At least in tax law, the Supreme Court sometimes gets it right.
Leave a Reply