Senate approves resolution opposing Proposition 8

Just days before the matter is to be taken up by California’s Supreme Court, the state Senate today approved a resolution today calling Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, an improper revision of the Constitution because it was not approved by the Legislature.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the initiative is a fundamental revision to the document, not an amendment, and therefore required deliberation by the Legislature and a two-thirds vote of both houses to put it on the ballot.

"Do we have a constitutional democracy in California, or do we have mob rule?" Leno asked his colleagues before the 18-14 vote approved the resolution.

The issue of whether proper procedures were followed in putting the measure on the ballot is to be considered Thursday, when the state Supreme Court takes up a legal challenge to the ballot measure.

Republican senators said the resolution was an inappropriate attempt by the Legislature to influence the courts.

"Californians have spoken. They have spoken a couple of times," said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). "I guess I don’t see the California citizens, who I believe thoughtfully went to their voting places, as participating in mob rule."

--Patrick McGreevy

Photo: Protesters demonstrate against Proposition 8. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Vaughn]

Great, more dysfunctional families coming right up...

[Rick Daily]

I agree that marriage is not a right, or rather wasn't a right, until prop 8 stated "...eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples..." That is when marriage became a right, and that is when I disagreed with the proposition! Like it has already been stated, this proposition is so similar to allowing interracial marriage. America always has to have a bad guy. The British, French, Germans, Jews, Blacks, Islamics, "Terrorists", Hispanics, and now the Gays. I know that it will be a LONG time until this problem is resolved, but I hope people are able to see that if you don't agree with Gay Marriage, I'm sure it can't ruin the "already-damaged family unit."

[KevinMcC]

>>"Let's see ... 6.3 million people in California, approx. 17% of the state's population voted to take away the marriage rights of a minority. I'd hardly call 6.3 million people a majority. " ...

Let's see... 4 judges, ignoring the millions of Californians who voted for and passed Prop 22, decide to redefine the word "marriage," an institution tested and affirmed over thousands of years. When the majority of voters *again* vote to affirm the definition of marriage and place that definition in the Constitution, a minority starts whining and crying "discrimination." The legislature wasted yet more valuable hours today.

[jhhen]

I'm more interested in voters rights. Who is going to stand up for the voters. Some day the decision will be on the other side. What then? should the minority on that particular issue demand the senate overturn that vote? You people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Someone is always going to come out on the short side of a vote. If we allow the courts or the Government body to overturn the will of the people at every turn then what will be the point of voting? I believe the Gay Rights avocates need to put up their own ballot issue and appeal to the compassion of the people of the state of California who may have had a change of heart by this time.

[rick]

Hell, meet handbasket.

[Beef]

Libdems are selfish and immature to the point of detriment to their cause. This is clearly a case of our broken California government exercising true mob rule. Sacramento is full of elected mobsters who will do what they are told when cash and votes are on the line. Civil disobedience is the right of both sides of the argument, let's hope citizens remain civil in the face of political hacking.

[Molly]

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
i am apauled. if you don't like gay marriage ban it in your church but we except all people in america and its time we started to show so back bone. as minoritys we need to tell the church to get out of our government before they tell us all to believe in their church

[Mike]

people like Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). are the reason why Jim Crow laws where only removed due to courts. I also liked how Sen. Runner forgot to mention that this only passed by 4% and that support FOR gay marriage grew by oer 12 % in 4 years while support AGAINST gay marriage lost over 13% support in those 4 years.

People are beginning to understand gay marriage won't be the end of society they see that Canada and Europe has not been destroyed due to it.
They also realize it is a civil rights issue.

[Jim]

Galen, it would be lovely if our ballot initiatives were checked to see if they're legal before they're put on the ballot, but unfortunately, they are not. We very often approve initiatives that are illegal, and quickly thrown out. I'm sorry you pinned your hopes on Prop 8's legality, but the fact is, its legality is highly questionable and therefore it is proper for the Supreme Court to look at it, and it's appropriate for the legislature to inform the Court of its opinion on the matter.

If Prop 8 is thrown out as unconstitutional, it will in no way be the Court undermining your rights, but rather the Court affirming that we're all protected from laws -- even those approved by 52% of the population -- that violate our rights.

[Jag136]

Another waste of Taxpayers money. I would think the California Senate would have bigger fish to fry, like paying for illegal immigrants, Octuplets, and the waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars.

I would remind all of you, there was a vote, a winner and a loser...get over it and move on.

I would also tell you Marriage is not a right....it is a regulated contract, governed by state law and your willingness to pay a fee to the state for a marriage license....just like a drivers license, just like a business license...nothing more than that!!

States that have allowed Gay Marriage, have done so by not allowing the people within that state to vote. More than 30 states have voted to ban Gay Marriage, California being one of them. If there was a violation of "civil rights" then why does the Federal Govenment not recognize Gay Marriage. Why are Social Security Benefits, Veterans Benefits denied to Gay Marriages.....because its Federal LAW!!!!

Get over it......all of the gays wanting to marry, go move to MASS. or Conn.....just remember....you can't get a divorce!!!

[Dino]

Prop 8 critics really don't get it!! The people voted and their will should be upheld. Marriage is not a civil right. And I totally agree with Mac Reynolds on this issue. Just wait until the US Supreme Court decide on this and I am pretty sure that it will be UPHELD.

[Dino]

Prop 8 critics really don't get it!! The people voted and their will should be upheld. Marriage is not a civil right. And I totally agree with Mac Reynolds on this issue. Just wait until the US Supreme Court decide on this and I am pretty sure that it will be UPHELD.

[Jerome Melgar]

Since when is a lifestyle that someone CHOOSES considered a minority?

The same left-wing legislation that voted for tax increases and put our state in to near bankruptcy is the same one that one's to ruin California's moral values.

[Stan]

I am amazed at the ignorance of my fellow CA voters who actually think that the majority opinion is more important than a minority's rights. This isn't a popularity contest, it's about BASIC civil rights. Haven't we learned our lesson with interracial marriage? When the CA Supreme Court threw out the ban on interracial marriage, need I remind my fellow CA voters that an even larger percentage of you were against it, than are against gay marriage now? So, do you think that we should still have a ban on interracial marriage, simply because the majority of voters back then thought it was immoral? I would hope not. Civil rights always march forward, and the people who are against gay marriage now are on the losing side of this issue. It WILL be the law some day. It might take 20 years but it WILL be the law. Don't believe me? Check out the White House website, and see what Obama's agenda is for civil rights. He favors FULL equality for gay and lesbian couples, whether it be called civil unions or something else. Just the fact that more than half a dozen nations around the world have full gay marriage is a sign that times are changing rapidly.

[Ryan K.]

Sz, this issue is not being taken before the US Supreme Court because it is not related to the federal constitution. The California Supreme Court is handling it because the issue involves only the California constitution.

[Matt morgan]

Personaly as against prop 8 as I am I think they should let it stand. In 2010 when this is on the ballot again the people of california will legalize gay marriage and that would be a MASSIVE step forward. Support for gay marriage is growing while the opposers are switching their stances or simply dying off due to old age.

My fear is they pushed this issue on the fact that the purpose of marriage is to produce children and form a family unit. What is too stop the churchs from next targeting sterile couples ? Or old woman past menopause ?

let is stand and in 2010 California will lead the way again and become the first state to have the PEOPLE vote FOR gay marriage.

[Fran]

I feel saddened with what I read here. This isn't an issue of who is right or wrong, and will argue this this isn't an human right issue either or discrimination as some will argue, does a gay person get turn down for a job in California because they're gay, my guess is no, but blacks, and Hispanics do, are gay more likely to go to prison because of their sexual orientation I think you've got an answer to that one too, the gay and lesbian cry although legitimate to certain degree has hijacked the real issue which is equality amongst the races. a marriage is an union between a man and a woman, and it is for that reason humanity exist today. and this is coming from a non religious person.

[Steve]

"Californians have spoken. They have spoken a couple of times," said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). "I guess I don’t see the California citizens, who I believe thoughtfully went to their voting places, as participating in mob rule."

Well said, Senator Runner. A majority of the California Legislature has declared war on the majority of California voters. This should stand as a stark reminder to how far the California government has strayed from being a true democracy.

[Uncle Fatlips]

Mac,

You're on drugs. Churches and state are no more intertwined by marriage than the christening of infants in church is with legalized adoption. One's a religious act---one's a legal one. You do not need to go to church to get married. You do not need to christen a baby to adopt.

You're a danger to yourself and possibly to others my friend because you're delusional. Quit saying things that just aren't true. If you keep that up you'll start to believe the craziness that you're saying and insist that others believe it, too.

To that end, who died and made you arbiter of what constitutes a person's civil rights---especially as defined by California law? It is this kind of arrogance that HISTORICALLY in America has gotten defeated again and again and again THANK THE LORD.

Mac, here are the facts. Warning: Facts have a strong relationship with reality. I know--I know, that doesn't quite jive with your take on things--but you can't say that you weren't informed. Now read the following:

In 1964 California voters had voted in favor of Proposition 14 which would have wiped out the state’s fair-housing law.

The state’s attorney general at that time in similar fashion to Jerry Brown ultimately argued against the passage of Prop 14 since based on the state’s constitution the proposition attempted to undercut the civil rights of those people protected by the fair-housing law. Meaning, the law had already been in effect. To eliminate it would undoubtedly impact the civil rights of the individuals protected by it. Due to the attorney general’s argument Prop 14 was successfully overturned and the state’s fair housing law was reinstated.

Likewise, Prop 8 eliminates same-sex individuals right to marry–therefore compromising the civil rights of those individuals. Had same sex individuals not already been granted the right to marry by the Supreme Court this would be a different argument entirely—and a very weak one. However, every branch of government—including the governor, a majority of state legislators, and the state’s highest court—approves the rights of same-sex couples to marry, while a slim majority of voters have eliminated those rights.

Brown states in a recent newspaper article as follows: “We have a conflict between the amendment power (through voter initiatives) and the duty of the Supreme Court to protect minorities and safeguard liberty.”

There ya have it, Mac. The state of California in all its turbulent beauty. I love this state. I love the fact that in a matter of days same-sex marriage will be civil law. It's wonderful man. Your vote made it possible.

[Andrew]

Democracy IS mob rule by a majority, why do people confuse Democracy and Republic? The US is a Republic, but the Democrats are increasingly trying to switch it back to a Democracy, where the majority of mobsters rule.

[Mike]

Jerome, you're right on!

How is this, in any way, being discriminative towards "minorities?"
Homosexuals choose to be gay! You aren't born that way! Give me a freakin' break people!

So now should skinny people feel discriminated because all the food around us is for fat people? Should fat people feel discriminated because all the media insists on everyone being skinny?

Get over it homo! We voted, you lost. You already put your children through crap just because you choose to kiss another man in front of his or her friends! Now you want the outcome of the vote to be in your favor, even though it's very clear, the people of California are NOT in your favor.

Does this selfishness come with the disgusting lifestyle you've chosen?

[Ian]

Marriage is a religious term enthroning partnership in the eyes of god. I say let's do away with the whole thing - invalidate all straight marriages but grandfather them in under a civil union clause that gives all the rights of a marriage. Then we'll all be equal.

After all RELIGION is a choice - you choose to be observant. Why should the rights of the few be determined by the many?

[Jim]

Two very basic points here:

1) Homosexuality is not chosen. A homosexual can choose to repress or deny their sexual orientation, but cannot change it. Even the so-called "ex-gay ministries" are beginning to acknowledge this scientific fact. And even if homosexuality were chosen, gays are still as deserving of equal protection as those who made another lifestyle choice: to practice Mormonism. Mormons, should we deprive you of your fundamental rights because you CHOOSE not to convert to a more acceptable religion? I would hope everyone agrees that you, as a minority based on behavior, deserve the same rights as everyone else. So do gays and lesbians.

2) In the United States, like it or not, civil marriage is a fundamental right. That was firmly established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Claiming that marriage isn't a civil right shows ignorance. Stating that marriage shouldn't be regarded as a civil right effectively means that you think the U.S. Supreme Court erred when it struck down interracial marriage bans. Those of you who insist that marriage isn't a civil right, I'd suggest you back off that argument, because it makes you sound either ignorant or racist.

[Jake Benson]

The majority voted yes on Prop 8. I'm sure the majority would have also voted yes to ban blacks from public white schools 50 years ago too. This is why civil rights should not be in the hands of the public to vote on in many cases, as they are clearly too biased and unintelligent to make an informed decision. In fact, I would claim that anyone who voted to ban gay marriage should not be allowed to vote. I can't believe that many stupid people live in my state.

[Byron Mullet]

I wonder if the homosexual mob and supporters would have outvoted the normal family types and supporters in Proposition 8 if they would have referred to the outcome as mob rule? It seems to be the typical ploy of the liberals the past few years to accuse the establishment of what they themselves do. I suppose since they have no moral high ground from which to base any arguments in their defense they try and preempt the other side with accusations. Strange how unbeknown to themselves they prove the existence of a devil who the bible refers to as the accuser of the brethren. Their tactics have his unmistakable mark on them. By proving there is a devil they inadvertently stir up devotion and reliance on God by all true Americans who recognize Christian virtue as the true spirit of America.