I think it's ridiculous. The people voted against it, but were turned down. The laws should foremost be decided by the people, not higher authority. It's called a democracy. What do other people think? Post any comments you have... I'm curious!
P.S. I don't have much to write on this subject because I'm just curious to hear what others think. Personally, I don't agree with what happened... I don't believe that is what America is built upon. Especially right after reading the Declaration of Independence for the 100th time today in AP US History
Filling up extra room........
I get out of school in about two weeks. It's exciting. Summer is finally here! Next year, I'm joining student council. I wonder how that will go.. And I'll also be a junior. High school has slowly became better and better... Freshman year sucked. This year was pretty awesome. Can't wait for next!
I still need about fifty words. I think this whole minimum requirement is stupid. Or maybe it's to prevent posts like these :) Oh and by the way, if anyone needs a great song to listen to, check out Such Great Heights by The Postal Service. It's the same lead singer as the one from Death Cab For Cutie so it's amazing.
Actually, "the people" did vote to institute same-sex marriage...twice in fact...through the normal legislative process, only to have those acts vetoed by a republican governer.
Oh, and the U.S. is a Constiutional Republic, not a "democracy." The difference between the two is that the former is contrained by the Rule of Law, which dictactes that legislative acts (even those enacted through a ballot initiative) have to comply with the governing principals of the State and Federal Constitutions. In this case, the California Supreme Court exercised its legitimate authority of judicial review to strike down an unconsititutional ballot initiative.
One of the most fundamental concepts in a Constituional Republic is that the basic rights of citizenship are not subject to legislative infringement. Honestly, what do they teach you guys in American Government class these days?
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Then why was it voted against now? And then the state gov rejected that... It doesn't make sense.
I'm pretty sure I've heard the US being called a democracy... I don't understand how you can argue that.
I don't take Gov till next year so I haven't learned much on it yet.
dún do bheal
The pre-1997 California Family Code defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This definition did not, however, actually say that marriage was only to be allowed between a man and a woman. The law was ammended in 1997 to read "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This still left a loophole for marriages that were performed out-of-state, however, and in 2000, a ballot initiative (Prop 22) was passed to explicitly state that California would only recognize marriages between "one man and one woman." In 2005, however, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage by a significant majority. This bill was vetoed by republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who at signing stated that he believed that this issue would have to be settled in the Courts (which is why one really can't cry "judicial activism" in this case). In 2006, the California Legislature passed another bill to legalize same-sex marriage. This bill was also vetoed. In 2007, and fearing the pending decision of the Courts, various citizens groups proposed four constitutional amendments by ballot initiative (bringing the total to twelve similar initiatives that had been attempting to do the same thing since 2004) with the intent of taking the decision away from the jurisdiction of the Court. All four of the initiatives failed to gather enough signatures to even be placed on the ballot (ultimately, all twelve initiatives suffered similar failures).
Throughout this morass, six separate lawsuits were filed regarding various aspects of this issue. The Court gathered them all up, and decided them all at once. I suggest that if you really want to understand this case, you need to read the decision.
In re MARRIAGE CASES.
And yes, I am sure you have heard the U.S. referred to as a "democracy," and in a very general sense, that isn't entirely incorrect. But in a specific sense, we are a Constitutional Republic, which is a specialized form or democracy which is contrained by a Constitution and in which the people are represented by elected officials. The system is specifically designed to protect the rights of individual citizens from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution makes this very clear...
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." (Article 4. Section 4)
Follow this link and read The Constitution of the United States of America. You will not find the word "democracy" anywhere in it.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Write on a topic about which you can find 200 words from an interesting viewpoint. It's kind of a waste of a click for he reader otherwise.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This comment was pretty pointless. That's all I have to say to you.
dún do bheal
So was your article, which regurgitated the argument of people who thought the Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and segregation were pretty good things. You shouldn't have to take a high school government class to see that just because a law is made doesn't make it constitutional.
If MLK taught us anything it was that a law, even an initiative drawn up by the people, which violates the social rights of a minority, can be broken. That is moral.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?