(no subject)

[cormac]

A couple of years ago, I wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein, expressing my concerns over her support for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. I cited Supreme Court decisions that had deemed laws banning such desecration to be unconstitutional, as they prohibited freedom of speech. Instead of accepting that such a ban is incompatable with the highest law in the land, Senator Feinstein sought to put such unconstitutional ideas into the Constitution itself.

This seemed odd to me, as it not only prohibited actions of the American people (the last time that was tried with an amendment, it was repealed), but would make the document internally inconsistent. It would be akin to amending the Constitution to say that Christianity was the offical religion of the land, and that all employees of the government had to prove that they were true believers of the faith. It just doesn't work with the First Amendment.

Now I see that reactionaries are trying to do the same thing to the California Constitution. Now that the California Supreme Court has ruled that laws prohibiting homosexual marriages are unconstitutional, these idiots are trying to amend the Constitution.

Why, oh why, do these people hate freedom?

Comments

[dieppe.livejournal.com]

The thing is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the courts CAN decide that a voted law, or even an amendment to the California Constitution, is unconstitutional. I know, "activist judges" and all that. But that's how the balance of laws, judges, rulings, legislature, and governor/president all is supposed to work.

At the very least we must fight to make sure any attempt will lose before it can be enshrined into law. Encourage people to vote, and to vote against it. Or protest, perhaps?

[cormac.livejournal.com]

You were correct to a point. The courts can rule a law as unconstitutional, as the higher constitutional law supercedes the lower law. However, something within the constitution itself cannot be unconstitutional. In other words, if it's in, it's in, and nothing short of another constitutional amendment can remove it.

[abbybob.livejournal.com]

They don't hate freedom, in this case, its "OHS NOES TEH GHEY!!!"

I can't roll my eyes far enough back into my head. Let people get married, it stimulates the economy.

[firedrake-mor.livejournal.com]

I don't think that they hate freedom so much as they fear anything they don't understand, which is a normal human condition. Certainly, my family in Alabama would not understand the number of gay and lesbian friends I have, have spent time with and even provided spiritual counseling for. (I sat with one friend while he died (of AIDS, brought on because he'd been HIV+ for years, but listened to his mother about getting a flu shot), then Selene and I took care of his partner that night till he could get his head togther). I've had a wonderful Christmas party at the home of a gay couple, and I act semi-regularly with a bunch of gay men in "Hidden Frontier".

They wouldn't get it. The people behind the supposed amendment truly believe that it is against "God's Law" and is somehow a threat to their way of life. You can point out till you're blue in the face that most cases of sexual child abuse are done by HETEROsexuals, but they're still afraid that gay men are out to "convert" their children.

They're scared, pure and simple, and it's hard to counter that kind of fear with facts.

[lady_songsmith]

Well, the thing is, once the constution is amended, the law is no longer unconstitutional and logical consistency reasserts itself, because the amendment supercedes the original text (which I'm sure we're very glad about, in light of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and even the 17th and 24th).

Which is not to say that these people aren't blazing idiots, and should be shouted down. Trouble is, they have a pseudo-point in that the measure in question passed by a scary margin. Pseudo-point, of course, because if the majority got to decide civil liberties, we'd be lacking the 13th, 14th... etc. But they don't get that. Or they get it all too well and are determined not to have it happen again, depending on which demographic of 'they' you're talking about.

[czina.livejournal.com]

Well, it's definitely 'we fear what we do not understand' (insert bad southern twang)

Of course - if you don't want certain people to get married - BAN MARRIAGE! But ban it for all people. Make it a purely religious ceremony, where only 'the chosen' can be sanctified.

Then let the US and state governments offer civil unions/domestic partnerships, open to all, and only let the CIVIL partnerships be given the 'legal benefits' now granted only to married couples. Which means equal protection, equal access, equal opportunity, and all the other 'equals' that have been determined to be legally required in government.

This is actually closer to the separation clause, since the government will no longer be making laws establishing or restricting religious practice. And churches can control the 'sanctity of marriage' to their hearts content, while no one can be denied their civil union based on protected designations.

And I say this as a happily married person - but Red and I had the legal paperwork done in a courthouse (10 years next Thursday) and then had our own ceremony, with the dress, flowers, and family 2 months later (10 years in July). We count the July one as our anniversary, but in terms of any legal issues, the one in May is the official one.

[jillaw.livejournal.com]

This is exactly the format I've been supporting. "Legal" marriage has nothing to do with the Bible, but has everything to do with property, taxes, etc. I see no reason why a secular law should be ruled by Judeo-Christian law (which I practice). So separate 'em.

My church would not be performing any marriages, and that's fine. My gay and lesbian friends don't go to my church anyway. One of the things though that bothers me is the fact that my conservative bretheren zero in on this particular thing.