LittleWyvern

This is slightly inaccurate. The holding of the California supreme court in overturning Prop 22 was that marriage in general is a right given to people in general, and that we should not discriminate based on race, religion, social status, sexual orientation, or any factor other than age and other restrictions already passed into law (more specifically, restrictions must pass the strict scrutiny test). The constitution does not judge classes based on the opinion of any certain religion (the 1st amendment restricts the government from respecting any religion or religions over another), it judges classes based on ability to be a contributing member of society. This was a key point in the overturning of Prop 22: that there was no reason to discriminate marriage based on sexual orientation as there was no proof that these couples could not be contributing members of society, and thereby such restrictions did not pass the strict scrutiny test. I realize that our religion feels that such couples are immoral, but not all religions do. I wasn't saying that the Constitution or the law was amoral (indeed, there are a lot of ideas in the Constitution that can be traced back to the moral economy movement in the 1600's), but that the process is amoral. The process cannot hold the morals of one person over those of another (again, 1st amendment), so it necessarily must not decide cases based on morals.

I did read the your quotes, but I apologize for the incorrect wording. I think all we really disagree on is timing. :)

Oh, I'm not trying to say that Benson was wrong or that such a thing won't happen, I just don't see what Benson is describing yet. Why? Both parties of this debate are following the procedures of the California Constitution, there is no civil violence, and the Constitution is being upheld and revered by both sides. Just because the system, as described by the Constitution, makes one decision I disagree with, doesn't mean (to me) that the entire system is immoral and corrupt. The political process is amoral. That's the way it's always been. I think in order for the Constitution to be destroyed, the judicial system would have to be destroyed, since their only job is to uphold the constitution.

Well, there are two main questions in this case. The first is the "major revision" thing that I've already mentioned. Here's the part of the California Constitution that has this "major revision" clause: So in actuality the California Constitution doesn't have a "major revision" clause, just a "revision" one (vs. just amending it, in section 3). And who decides what exactly a "revision" is? The judiciary branch. This is the way it's been since the founding. The second question is if Prop 8 violates the separation of powers principle as enshrined by the California Constitution. This I don't have a citation for yet, but I'll try to find it. I don't think this case will set a strong precedent in other states, as each state has its own constitution. For example, if a state already has an amendment banning same-sex marriage, and nobody is appealing it, then this argument that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional will have no effect because it isn't unconstitutional in that state. The only way this case will ever set a national precedent is if an amendment was passed into the national Constitution that made such amendments unconstitutional (as the national Constitution is the supreme law of the land), which may be easier if this case moves to the federal supreme court. Anyway, it's interesting how we have wildly different outlooks on this case. When I see this case I see the Constitution still going strong, as we're following the procedures to the letter, all is going according to the law, and there is no civil violence.

I was going to make a post here about derivatives and other calculus terms to support my first point, but then everybody would be confused (even me) except Moe, who would probably find an error in my math somewhere and make me look even more silly. *goes back to his corner*

It's interesting that you say this. Both sides of this argument are appealing to the constitution for support of their arguments (indeed, one of the main arguments is whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional). I don't think either side wants to ignore it. Also, keep in mind that this is the constitutional of California we're talking about here, not the constitution of the United States.

I don't think anybody should be really surprised, the market has been heading in this direction (the slope of the slope, essentially) for a year and a half. Blaming this on Obama makes no sense.

That's because the Supreme Court found the proposition unconstitutional. You can't pass and keep an unconstitutional law just because a plurality wants it there, it would defeat the purpose of having a written constitution in the first place. I have a feeling, no matter what the outcome, it's going to be appealed anyway.

If I were Obama I'd be more worried about my addiction to my Blackberry tbh...

As far as I'm aware this whole "major revision" thing is unique to California's constitution.

You are correct. The judiciary exists to uphold the law. That is their singular purpose. To this end, it is important that the judiciary is as independent as possible and avoid any outside influences, in order to give a pure and unbiased interpretation of the law. In this case, the judiciary is also responsible to ensure correct procedure is followed in drafting new laws and abolishing old ones. And so it is with this case: some people feel that Prop 8 is a major change to the Constitution, as it takes a civil right (some cases in the California Supreme Court have edged toward making marriage a civil right: the fact that marriage is a civil right is the opinion of that court, not necessarily me) away from a minority group. Such major revisions, per the terms of the constitution of California, requires a 2/3 vote. Therefore, it is up to the judiciary to decide, based on the law alone, whether or not Prop 8 is a major revision or whether or not it is even constitutional. Now, the people can try to propose an amendment to allow major revisions to the constitution by a simple plurality (although that might itself be a major revision, haha), or propose an amendment that makes bills such as Prop 8 constitutional, and if those pass the judiciary would not be able to do anything. But until then, the judicary must judge new law by the procedures and decisions of the old, no matter what the voice of the people might say. They shouldn't be (in theory). If they are, they aren't good judges.

The judiciary is supposed to be independent of the people. They are supposed to judge based on the law as it stands.

It would only go to the Federal Supreme Court if somebody appealed the decision by the California Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court accepted the appeal. I'm curious how you're so sure of both the decision of California and Federal.

Well, you can take it, but it doesn't really count, per se. The sacrament renews baptismal covenants, so if you haven't been baptized taking the sacrament does nothing for you. So, there's no real reason for you to take the sacrament, but if it makes you feel more a part of the community/congregation, I don't see how anybody would object.

It's really the judiciary's responsibility to remain independent of every other branch of government as well as the people. If they allow outside influences to influence their own decisions, they're not good judges. Remember, it's the judiciary that has the final say as to whether or not Prop 8 will stand, not the legislators. It is, therefore, the judiciary's responsibility to ignore the influences of the legislature and the people and judge on Prop 8 strictly based on the California State Constitution as it now stands. ...and, you do know that socialism is a dictatorship of the workers, right?

Yeah, that's true... I'm probably not authorized to give out that information. I suppose you'd have to call the BYU offices or something.

I have access to the BYU student directory. PM me with whatever personal details you feel necessary and I'll see what's listed as his personal information as far as phone number/address is concerned.

At the pace bytor is copy/paste-ing, she'll have quite a bit to look at.

I think, given the subject matter, we should be allowed to have 8 different concurrent threads on the subject.

This is true, but the process of judicial review (note the judiciary is not making laws, just reviewing them) has long been the judicial branch's most important check against both the legislature and the people. The Founders trusted nobody with total power, not even the people (see, for example, the filters of consent principle). ...and the citizen's power over the government. If the people could add an amendment that contradicted the constitution by just a simple majority vote with nothing to stop them, what would be the point of a written constitution? There are ways to amend state constitutions, and they are made hard to do on purpose. EDIT: as an added note I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not Prop 8 is unconstitutional, mostly because that's up to the Supreme Court of California to decide, not me. I'm simply discussing theory in this post.

Ha, you've trumped me with just that! I suppose you're right, and I'll defer posting here for the time being.

Ah, I see now. As of now the rules for General are "post on any topic but follow the rules," but a suppose we could place an additional rule there that all topics of a political nature should be posted in Current.

That's true in a sense, but it's still an always-watching-and-waiting scenario, no matter how indirectly.

I think we could successfully differentiate between discussing the meaning and impact of current events and the political theory behind such events. I'd gladly second bodhigirlsmiles' motion if we're being that fancy.

Subverted? If a bill is unconstitutional it's unconstitutional. By all means, somebody could try to amend out of existence that part of the California Constitution that makes Prop 8 unconstitutional in the opinion of the Supreme Court of California, but let's respect the system of law as it now stands and not disrespect it simply because a decision was made by the system that we disagree with.