The Will Of The People, Verse The "Right" To Marry

California awaits California's Supreme Court decision.

Hey folks,

Happy Monday to you. Here is something I have been following pretty closely. As you know, we had a little thing called an ELECTION. During that election, there was an amendment on the ballot for the PEOPLE to vote on. It was called Prop 8.

Prop 8 in California was similar to other Ballot initiatives in other States. It calls for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage by defining Marriage as between one Woman and one Man. Every State that had this initiative on it, passed. The People voted it into law. In California, it was voted FOR by 70 percent of the African American voting population. It was CLEAR that the People in California WANTS this.

Then the radical Liberal Kook Gay Activists took to the streets. They starting protesting Churches and entire Religions. I pointed out that they were targeting the WRONG people. Even, then, President Elect Obama said he was against Gay Marriage. He said this.

Obama: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not in favor of gay marriage." November 8, 2007 Gays Targeting Wrong People

Enter our 2008 Idiot of the Year Award Winner, California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Jerry filed a brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is Unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right. Idiot Of The Year Award For 2008

As I said back then.

WRONG! On so many different levels I might add. One, there is no Right to Marry. There are laws put forth to limit it. But there is NO Constitutional Right to Marry. Second, THE PEOPLE VOTED and nearly EVERYONE sees Marriage as a Union between one Man and one Woman. Third, actually there is no need to discuss further than THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

The people Voted. It is a done deal. But this IS the NEW Liberalism folks. Jerry said he wants the Will of the People thrown out. He said Vote, because everyone, including myself, thought it would be voted down. But it was voted IN. So now they are saying "Yeah you voted, but SCREW YOU. This is the type of thing you have to look forward to and have SEEN with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. You do not want Abortion? SCREW YOU. You do not want oppressive taxation? SCREW YOU. You do not want Government run Healthcare? SCREW YOU. You do not want the Government telling you what to drive, the temp you keep your house, what you can and can not do, in the name of saving the planet that is? SCREW YOU. Amnesty is coming folks. Make no mistake about that.

So now California awaits California's Supreme Court decision. I know what you are thinking. They are the ones the WROTE the Same Sex Marriage thing. So this is a done deal. The People's Will will be thrown out in the name of "fairness." Not so fast. According to Time.com - Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting? By Michael Lindenberger – Sat Mar 7, 1:30 am ET

The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year's historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. "You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution," said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. "You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California."

That's right, the People Voted. Now THAT is an actual and Constitutionally PROTECTED Right.

The justices created the right to marry same-sex partners in California last year in a sweeping 4-3 decision. But in November, Californians went to the polls to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The amendment passed with 52% of the vote, but protests spread throughout the state in the days immediately after the vote. Several groups sued, arguing that stripping away the right to marriage amounted to such a serious change to the constitution that it should require more than a simple majority vote.

Not true.

Chief Justice Ronald George, the Republican justice who authored last year's opinion, appeared to agree that the barrier to constitutional amendments is far too low in California, noting that the Golden State has seen fit to amend its constitution no fewer than 500 times since 1911, while the U.S. Constitution has survived more than 200 years with just 27 amendments. But like Kennard, who had also voted with the majority to establish the right to gay marriage last year, George seemed to suggest Thursday that until the people of California raise the barrier for amendments, the court has little power to overturn their decisions.

Try really NO power whatsoever. The People VOTED. The Will of the People MUST be upheld.

That line of thinking was exactly what Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater independent counsel who is now dean of Pepperdine Law School, had in mind when it was his turn to argue against overturning Prop. 8. Starr is serving as counsel to supporters of traditional marriage who received permission to argue on the initiative's behalf when it became clear that Attorney General Jerry Brown would most likely support efforts to strike down Prop. 8. "The issue before this iconic court has to do with the sovereignty of the people of California," Starr said. "We have heard a lot about individual rights and suspect classification ... But the Attorney General's office points to one inalienable right, the right to marry. But the people, too, have an inalienable right to change their constitution."

{Laughing} Cute. Did you catch the hidden meaning here? Kenn Star? Clinton's old Nemesis. See, it's those evil Republicans out to get you. {Smile}

When questioned, Starr conceded that his view of the state constitution would permit a simple majority of the voters to repeal any right enshrined in the state constitution, including the right to free speech or a prohibition against racial discrimination. "While it is unthinkable," he said, "... the people do have the raw power" to make whatever changes they desire, so long as they do not alter the basic structure of government. Changes that violate the U.S. Constitution, he added, would of course be struck down on federal grounds, but so far no federal appellate court has ruled that the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage.

Because Marriage itself, in any form, is NOT Constitutionally Protected. It just isn't.

The court can take up to 90 more days to issue its ruling, and questions during oral arguments do not always accurately reflect the thinking of individual justices. But Thursday's three-hour session did indicate that the primary argument advanced against Prop. 8 faces big hurdles in the court. Even the lawyers who are asking the court to declare Prop. 8 invalid because it is more like a constitutional revision - which would require approval by lawmakers as well as by voters - conceded, when asked by the court, that there is essentially no precedent in the court's history that directly supports their position. "We have a pretty well established body of law pertaining to what is and what is not a revision, and those decisions do not give strong support to your position that the people couldn't do when they did when they invalidated or disagreed with one aspect of the marriage decision," Kennard said. "Our past decisional law doesn't support the argument that the people couldn't do what they did."

But a second argument, advanced by Attorney General Brown, {Idiot of the Year} is that the most important rights found in the constitution are inalienable and not subject to changes by a simple vote of the majority, because they are too important. That argument, too, seemed to suffer under scrutiny from some justices, who asked how the court was supposed to figure out how to draw the line between rights that can't be taken away and those that are subject to amendment.

The hearings did offer hope for the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who have already married. Starr argued that the language in Prop. 8 means that no gay marriages, even those performed when the practice was legal, can be recognized by state authorities. That argument brought a bristling reply from several justices, who said such a ruling would violate basic notions of fairness.

"Fairness" {Sigh}

Still, such opposition doesn't guarantee that the court won't strike down the existing marriages. Given that three justices voted against gay marriage in the first place, it may be that all Starr needs to win on that point is to convince a single justice that Prop. 8 should be applied retroactively.

Now I'll tell you the truth. As I have said MANY times in the past, I wish Government would stay out of Marriage all together. I would hate to see the Government come swooping in and stripping those that LEGALLY Married after the Courts made it Legal. But then again, I'm not sure how you would start saying OK, this couple gets State and Federal Benefits, but this one doesn't and there will be no more. I would not want to be sitting on the Court for this one.

But the bottom line is really this. The People Voted. Period. The Court needs to do the right thing here and UPHOLD the Will of the People. It really IS, just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
Time.com - Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting?