Prop. 8 Supporters Sue Over 'Prejudicial' Ballot Wording

Adad »

Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Would the proponents of reinstating the ban against same-sex marriage make the same claim about, say, Loving v Virginia? In that unanimous ruling the Supreme Court struck down all state laws against interracial marriage. Every single argument they make applies just as logically to that ruling. Consider the facts:

1. Unelected judges struck down laws passed democratically by state legislatures

2. Those laws against miscegenation had been in place for centuries and had historical pedigrees going back eons in many cultures.

3. No court had ever found a "right" to interracial marriage in our entire history

4. The framers of the 14th amendment, upon whose equal protection clause the ruling was based, not only did not believe that this law would strike down laws against miscegenation, they explicitly campaigned in favor of the amendment by telling people that it would not do so.

Yet in 1967, a bunch of unelected judges suddenly "discovered" this "right" that no court had ever discovered and asserted their will to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people in 16 states based on a constitutional clause that had been passed by people who explicitly and specifically denied that it would lead to the conclusion they came to. But guess what? The court was right.”

Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

Adad »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:39 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 10

I applaud the new wording. It accurately reflects what would happen if the new amendment it passed. It would take away rights of a certain group of California (tax-paying) citizens to marry. It should be seen for what it is, and the new language does this.