Comments on: One Day After California…

By: Walter Hollis

Walter Hollis — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:37:06 +0000

Well…………..@ least they cannot reproduce, thank goodness.

By: gkroyse

gkroyse — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:15:00 +0000

No matter what happens here in Nov., and it’s going to be close,WE have no intention of letting the right-wingers shut us down!

By: gkroyse

gkroyse — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:02:44 +0000

Here in CA.the polls are pretty much split right down the middle on the issue of state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equity:49% are for, 48% against,according to Gallop Poll published Saturday in the Sac.Bee. However the same people in that survey said that 56%were against legalizing same-sex marriage to 40% for it, go figure.

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:43:31 +0000

If a
“voter initiative… changed the legal cod…” what exactly are we hoping for in the elections? They already voted once, they will vote again… and win.

it could be possible in the fiture to re-amend the consititution no?

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:19:48 +0000

Oh well, that makes sense with what i heard from an anti-gay marriage proponent. He said that this issue was not for a court to decide but the ppl.

So i guess this means that if enough ppl vote for it in November then gays will NOT be allowed to marry then?

Also… are there any other states that have already turned in the votes, voted for and succesfully amended the constitution?

If some states amend the constitution … would this ‘violation’ in ‘gay rights’ be subjected to other higher authorities and be overturned? Or is the majority(christians) the voice that determines what is permitted(morally right) or not?

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:37:02 +0000

Joel,

No it was not a constitutional amendment. It was a voter initiative that changed the legal code, not the constitution.

The court determined that this voter-created law was inconsistent with the protections granted by the state constitution. There is a movement to change the constitution so that it no longer protects gay people and their access to equality under the law when it comes to marriage. Signatures have been turned in and are being counted to see if there are enough so that the initiative can be presented to voters in November.

Gov. Schwarzenegger cannot “veto” a constitutional amendment. However, he has promised to oppose efforts to pass such an amendment.

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:14:07 +0000

I have one very confusing idea floating around my head. I heard from some news report that there is an initiative that gov arnold said he would veto that would amend the consititution to make marriage a man and woman only institution. But what i dont get is what exactly did the courts state as unconstitutional? Wasnt that the majority-voted-for amendment to define marriage as a man and woman only institution?

By: Jarred

Jarred — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:34:07 +0000

I love the irony, Ben. I have to admit, it’s kind of nice to hear legislation with such a title which is for marriage equality.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:16:39 +0000

I’m a little unclear. does this mean that they are trying to protect marriage nad family by allowing gay marriage? How can they twist those wrods so badly?

And before anybody starts screaming, yes, this is an ironical question.