Dear Marcy;
Yes that is correct. However, if the amendment constitutes a major revising of the state constitution then it is classified as a revision and requires a 2/3's vote of both houses and a vote of the vast unwashed masses of the hoi polloi.
Prop. 8 by delibrately restricting a class of peoples is considered in the suits filed as a violation of the equal protection clause and discrimination against a minority group after the state supreme court stated the marriage laws were unconstitutional could then be considered a revision and Prop. 8 could be reviewed as such and the court could repeal its enactment or require Prop. 8 to go through the revision process of the legislature and 1/3 of the state legislators have signed on as a friend of the court brief that Prop. 8 usurps the supreme courts duty to protect minority groups.
Perfectly clear as mud - yes?
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Dear Ron,
Thank you! Actually, yes I do understand now.
Marcy
Dear Marcy;
Yes that is correct. However, if the amendment constitutes a major
revising of the state constitution then it is classified as a revision
and requires a 2/3's vote of both houses and a vote of the vast
unwashed masses of the hoi polloi.
Prop. 8 by delibrately restricting a class of peoples is considered
in the suits filed as a violation of the equal protection clause
and discrimination against a minority group after the state supreme
court stated the marriage laws were unconstitutional could then be
considered a revision and Prop. 8 could be reviewed as such and the
court could repeal its enactment or require Prop. 8 to go through the
revision process of the legislature and 1/3 of the state legislators
have signed on as a friend of the court brief that Prop. 8 usurps the
supreme courts duty to protect minority groups.
Perfectly clear as mud - yes?
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
________________________________
From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:44:20 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Prop 8 - What Happened- Who's To Blame?
Dear Ron,
I understand the point about the State Supreme Court maybe taking up
the case to decide on its constitutionality, presumably based on equal
rights clauses. However, I do not understand the comment that the
Legislature needs to approve by 2/3 vote. The way I read Article 18,
Section 3 of the CA Constitution, the initiative process is one way to
amend, independent of Sections 1 and 2 that provide for the
Legislative route.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@> wrote:
>
> Dear All;
>
> This article from the SF Chronicle expands on why Prop 8 won. It
makes for very interesting reading and the results of the black votes
and the denigration of the black vote ignoring cultural and religious
factors. As well as ignoring the Catholic and Evangelical and other
related reasons why Prop. 8 was voted yes.
>
> Personally I know blacks with gay friends who have been friends for
years including parties in each others homes and going out together
and the blacks had serious problems with the marriage thing. It went
against their grain. Civil union would be okay but marriage was way
too much information.
>
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/15/MN5R1435T4.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea
Dear All,
In the last election most people did not get everything they wanted. A very vocal minority seems to still be willing to allow the courts to rule rather than the people even though history has shown that societies ruled by dictators or small groups of people rather than by democratic rule have been very hard on small minorities. Even if the courts should rule in their favor for the last election, we should remember that the same courts and judges will not always be in place and then when we want democracy back again it may be too late.
Robert Parkhurst