T Nation

Why Bother to Let CA Vote?

Hey I found this interesting. If CA voted to ban gay marriage, why did the state supreme court feel the need to over turn that? I thought democracy ment rule by the people. Why did they bother to even ask the 30 + million in this state what they wanted if they had their own agenda anyways?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689

For the record, it just so happens its about the gay marriage. my real issue the the whole turning the vote over. While I am against gay marriage, lets keep the thread on why the court would do that and not whether its right or wrong to be gay

also I think they keep the change to the state constitution of the ballot because, as the last vote showed, it would get banned by the constitution

thoughts?

[quote]popgoblinn wrote:
Hey I found this interesting. If CA voted to ban gay marriage, why did the state supreme court feel the need to over turn that? I thought democracy ment rule by the people. Why did they bother to even ask the 30 + million in this state what they wanted if they had their own agenda anyways?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689

For the record, it just so happens its about the gay marriage. my real issue the the whole turning the vote over. While I am against gay marriage, lets keep the thread on why the court would do that and not whether its right or wrong to be gay

also I think they keep the change to the state constitution of the ballot because, as the last vote showed, it would get banned by the constitution

thoughts?[/quote]

I’m sure they did it to force the issue at the federal level in the legislature or Supreme Court. It’s some kind of judicial activism IMO.

Good question. When prop 187 was passed, it was ruled as “unconstitutional” as well. The state is pretty much run by La Raza apparatchiks and corporations. There really isn’t a point to voting here.

Doesn’t seem right does it?

Arizona did a similar thing with medical Marijuana. The first round it passed, the state Gov. refused to enact it then reworded the bill and launched a major publicity campaign against it. It failed the second time. The Governor (Popular Janet Napolitano) said she would put a law into affect like Med. Marijuana.

I find it odd that they can ask the people to vote on somthing like this… then over turn it but then we dont hear about hese kinds of stories until its ALMOST too late to act… http://www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/sb1437analysis.php

Like I said, I’m not here to push anything on anyone but it sure does seem like alot is being pushed on me and now If i want to send my daughter to school to learn how to read and write and do math, she also gets the fabulous opportunity to learn about transsexuals…
isnt it my job to teach her what i think is write and wrong? why do i feel like i have no say in all this?

we cant pay our teachers but we can change our curriculum to include gay history…

it seems like an agenda is being pushed

[quote]popgoblinn wrote:
I find it odd that they can ask the people to vote on somthing like this… then over turn it but then we dont hear about hese kinds of stories until its ALMOST too late to act… http://www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/sb1437analysis.php

Like I said, I’m not here to push anything on anyone but it sure does seem like alot is being pushed on me and now If i want to send my daughter to school to learn how to read and write and do math, she also gets the fabulous opportunity to learn about transsexuals…
isnt it my job to teach her what i think is write and wrong? why do i feel like i have no say in all this?[/quote]

Ever heard of homeschooling?

There will be an amendment to the CA Constitution put on the ballot - pretty much inevitable.

there was a new bill introduced as well that says you cannot homeschool your child unless you have a teaching credential. sounds like its good but alot of parents teach teir kids but couldnt afford to stop and get that cert. and if the performance of public says anything, its that all that schooling and those certs dont mean shit.

back on topic though, why do we all have to cater to the minority. A small group of citizens is controlling how the vast majority of the children in CA are going to be educated. But i have no say! AND, whatever happend to freedom of speech? I cant teach my daughter that homosexuality is immoral? I dont hate them or discriminate against them, but I shouldnt be forced to accept their lfestyle as normal anymore than they should be forced to accept my ideas as right

Your right. Asking them to vote on this is equivalent to asking them to vote on an interracial marriage ban a century ago.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Your right. Asking them to vote on this is equivalent to asking them to vote on an interracial marriage ban a century ago.[/quote]

HE IS BUTTHURT ABOUT CA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNING A BILL WE VOTED IN, NOT ABOUT WHETHER GAYS CAN GET MARRIED OR NOT. TRY READING A POST BEFORE BEING A JACKASS. SUPER ANGRY CAPSLOCK!!! CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG OP!!! DAMMIT I AM SO ANGRY!!!

[quote]popgoblinn wrote:
Hey I found this interesting. If CA voted to ban gay marriage, why did the state supreme court feel the need to over turn that? I thought democracy ment rule by the people. Why did they bother to even ask the 30 + million in this state what they wanted if they had their own agenda anyways?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689

For the record, it just so happens its about the gay marriage. my real issue the the whole turning the vote over. While I am against gay marriage, lets keep the thread on why the court would do that and not whether its right or wrong to be gay

also I think they keep the change to the state constitution of the ballot because, as the last vote showed, it would get banned by the constitution

thoughts?[/quote]

The supreme court can and should over turn a bill if it infringes on the constitutional rights of a minority. I don’t know the specifics of the bill you are talking about and frankly I don’t care. But the just because you have 51% of the vote doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the other 49%. That is the dark side of democracy, the tyranny of the majority, that the founding fathers set the system of checks and balances to protect us against.

I think it is a sound principle and this country would go to hell quick without it.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
popgoblinn wrote:
Hey I found this interesting. If CA voted to ban gay marriage, why did the state supreme court feel the need to over turn that? I thought democracy ment rule by the people. Why did they bother to even ask the 30 + million in this state what they wanted if they had their own agenda anyways?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689

For the record, it just so happens its about the gay marriage. my real issue the the whole turning the vote over. While I am against gay marriage, lets keep the thread on why the court would do that and not whether its right or wrong to be gay

also I think they keep the change to the state constitution of the ballot because, as the last vote showed, it would get banned by the constitution

thoughts?

The supreme court can and should over turn a bill if it infringes on the constitutional rights of a minority. I don’t know the specifics of the bill you are talking about and frankly I don’t care. But the just because you have 51% of the vote doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the other 49%. That is the dark side of democracy, the tyranny of the majority, that the founding fathers set the system of checks and balances to protect us against.

I think it is a sound principle and this country would go to hell quick without it.[/quote]

Agreed, but there is also a very real usurpation of popular will by judicial fiat.

This creeping extension of political correctness under the guise of equal rights makes Goldwater’s principled objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, wrong though they probably were, look a bit more defensible in retrospect.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:

The supreme court can and should over turn a bill if it infringes on the constitutional rights of a minority. I don’t know the specifics of the bill you are talking about and frankly I don’t care. But the just because you have 51% of the vote doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the other 49%. That is the dark side of democracy, the tyranny of the majority, that the founding fathers set the system of checks and balances to protect us against.

I think it is a sound principle and this country would go to hell quick without it.

Agreed, but there is also a very real usurpation of popular will by judicial fiat.

This creeping extension of political correctness under the guise of equal rights makes Goldwater’s principled objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, wrong though they probably were, look a bit more defensible in retrospect.[/quote]

Yes, judicial fiat can be a problem, which is why I think judges should only be appointed for 10 year terms.

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Your right. Asking them to vote on this is equivalent to asking them to vote on an interracial marriage ban a century ago.

HE IS BUTTHURT ABOUT CA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNING A BILL WE VOTED IN, NOT ABOUT WHETHER GAYS CAN GET MARRIED OR NOT. TRY READING A POST BEFORE BEING A JACKASS. SUPER ANGRY CAPSLOCK!!! CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG OP!!! DAMMIT I AM SO ANGRY!!!

[/quote]

yep thats about the jist of it… my opinion about gay marriage isnt whats bothering me…its that that asked me to vote and then said we dont care what you voted for…
good points all around though

Dear Scrotus,

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
The supreme court can and should over turn a bill if it infringes on the constitutional rights of a minority.

I don’t know the specifics of the bill you are talking about and frankly I don’t care. But the just because you have 51% of the vote doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the other 49%. That is the dark side of democracy, the tyranny of the majority, that the founding fathers set the system of checks and balances to protect us against.

I think it is a sound principle and this country would go to hell quick without it.[/quote]

Sincerely,
Beowolf.

Dear Beowolf,

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Dear Scrotus,

Uncle Gabby wrote:
The supreme court can and should over turn a bill if it infringes on the constitutional rights of a minority.

I don’t know the specifics of the bill you are talking about and frankly I don’t care. But the just because you have 51% of the vote doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the other 49%. That is the dark side of democracy, the tyranny of the majority, that the founding fathers set the system of checks and balances to protect us against.

I think it is a sound principle and this country would go to hell quick without it.

Sincerely,
Beowolf.[/quote]
Why are you sending that to me? I was just clarifying what the post is about to whoever became confused about the intended purpose of the thread. Didnt really have a point in either way on the topic, just trying to keep it on track, unlike now how I am derailing it. LoL I thought it would make it look like I was in favor of the court overturning the ruling with my description of the OP as “butthurt”.

Sincerely,
Scrotus

Here’s a good legal analysis of the majority opinion, for anyone interested:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI2NDM1ODAwOTBjNDk1ZmU4NmNhYzhhNDU0NWQ3NTY=

This will not be a law for very long. Another amendment will be put onto the ballot in November banning same sex marriages. It should pass easily. The majority of Californians do not support same sex marriage. I believe it is something like 70-30% against it.

The influx of large numbers of Latinos, who have a much more conservative outlook on THAT particular issue will assure that. This is yet another instance of white,rich,liberal(yes I am aware that 6 of 7 of the judges were appointed by a republican gov.) judges forcing their will on the people because they are so smart and they obviously know what is best for the people. Even if the people don’t agree. This isn’t an issue about whether homosexuality is immoral or not. This is an issue about judicial tyranny.