Highlights from the Prop 8 ruling: on overruling the will of the voters

United States
August 5, 2010 11:55am CST
Useful and instructive prose: "An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
2 responses
• Philippines
5 Aug 10
For me, this is more about the definition of marriage being morphed into something not intended rather than the rights of any groups. G Unions, yes; with rights, yes; but marriage, no. IMHO, Eric.
• United States
5 Aug 10
If that's what you want, then campaign to have government stop recognizing anyone's marriage and then we can all have domestic partnerships. So long as government recognizes anyone's marriage, it is unjust not to recognize everyone's marriage.
• Philippines
5 Aug 10
Interesting view(s) ... does any marriage "need" sanctioning or definition? You don't think marriage has long been held to be between a man and a woman? My point is simply that marriage is being selectively redefined from a traditional standpoint and it is shady to seek to change the term to receive recognition or benefits. First, change the legally accepted definition of marriage, or pursue equality in other ways. I have no agenda to pursue in this regard. I disagree that this push for marriage has to co-opt the word "marriage" and its historical meaning. How many G unions (stated that way due to my preferences here in mylot) result in procreation? Unions may actually be a more accurate classification for same gender relationships or is there a better term that comes to mind?
• United States
5 Aug 10
This "traditional marriage" you hang so much on is far less traditional than you would like to believe. Even looking at the history of the US, the definition of marriage has shifted. There was a time when American law didn't limit marriage to one man and one woman. There was a time when American law didn't permit marriage between racial classifications. There was a time when American law placed a married woman's assets under her husband's control. All these aspects of "traditional marriage" changed once society understood that they were odious and incompatible with being a nation governed by our Constitution. Nor does it matter how many gay marriages result in procreation, plenty of heterosexual marriages don't result in procreation and they are still marriages. You may have no agenda to pursue in this regard, but you pursue one nontheless.
• United States
5 Aug 10
Some people don't realize how our government works. They think that voters can get whatever they want...now on most things the voters will is law...but voters can not and are not allowed to pass laws that enfringe on the rights of others. "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%" -Thomas Jefferson Which is why we ARE NOT A democracy...we are a REPUBLIC. It shocks me how many people don't know that. "In a republic...the constitution is the government". We were never set up to be a "mob rule".