Proposition 8: Respecting the Will of the People

The civil and legal rights of Americans should not be put to a vote.

It is unconstitutional to discriminate against a category of people in the United States of America. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional guarantee in our country. The issue of same-sex marriage for gay Americans should not be subjected to a vote; the majority should not have the right to vote away the rights of any minority.

Gay Americans were disenfranchised and deprived of a legal and human right by being denied their constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender. Equal protection should not be afforded based on the vote of the majority.

The "religious right" will say anything to win even if it is utterly untrue. They will use scare tactics. They will twist events around 180 degrees if they think it will help them.
I saw this occur when they got into politics when I lived in Alabama. All of the sudden the end justified the means to them. It is an ugly thing to see religion become polluted by political games and lies.

Yes for Prop 8. One man and one Woman, this it's how was made! No matter you believe. For the rest go and live your life as you want.

THIS ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT MARRIAGE AS A DEFINITION BUT PROP 8 GOAL WAS TO ELIMINATE A RIGHT FROM A MINORITY GROUP. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE THIS IS ABOUT REAL PEOPLE THAT THEIR LIFE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THIS. ONLY LOVE IS REAL, HATE WILL NEVER PREVAIL.

Let's figure this out... When the majority speaks in a election, we have to go with it. When the majority speaks on issues that face society, we go with it. But when the majority speaks on an issue, those who disagree must speak out and reverse the decision. How does that work? Sen Obama was elected by 52% of the vote and those who don't agree with him are being told to "fall in line". Prop 8 in California passes with 52% of the vote and those who oppose it are not willing to accept it, but are not being told to fall into line.

You can't have it both ways people... the ballot measure was legal and approved by the government as a binding, legal proposition.

Deal with it.

Worth noting Jesus had not a word to say about homosexuality. This antimarriage movement is hateful. And sad. And dont we have more important things to do? wwjd?

Silence on a particular subject by Jesus Christ doesn't equal automatic acceptance. Jesus never mentioned many things but it cannot be used as a means for justifying behaviour.

==PROP 8 GOAL WAS TO ELIMINATE A RIGHT FROM A MINORITY GROUP.==

What you claim has been a "Right" has never been a Right. You people are trying to establish what has never been.

==Do you how many minority groups would still be second class citizens if the "will of the people" was upheld?==

Irrelevant. Those who claim to be homosexual do not make up a certified minority group any more than those who build model airplanes make up a certified minority group.

"Minority" is defined by the State, as a matter of fact. The State has not named those who claim to be homosexual to be a "minority group."

I have 5 children and I don't want them to grow up and be gay. However, I would love them anyways. My love for my children never changes.

That being said, I would not wish for them to legally marry if it were a homosexual relationship. I say this because I do believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I really wish that gays would use the idea of being in a union to confirm their devotion to one another. I believe that unions would be the alternate for homosexuals that marriage is for heterosexuals, it allows them the same basic rights. I feel that with unions there are enough rights to one another. For example, if a homosexual couple has a union, they may still visit one another in the hospital, enjoy each others employer benefits etc.

I'm not dashing homosexuality, even though I don't agree with it. I just want to understand why having the same rights isn't good enough just because it's defined by a different name.

I know as soon as I post this comment, I'm going to have some people jumping me and telling me it's not the same. Explain it to me. Nicely please.

I have no bad feelings towards people who are homosexual, I don't even hate them or dislike them. I've had a few for friends. I just really don't understand the homosexuals hate for people like me. It makes it even harder for the rest of the heterosexual world to like them when they treat others so poorly. They are not thinking about their image when they do things like this to the rest of the world.

==If people are born, or by nature are homosexual, then they are having their civil rights trampled.

If they are homosexual because of choice, or some other reason besides physiology, then this is not a civil rights issue.

I do not believe that people are homosexual by birth in the same as a person is born of a certain race or gender, so I do not believe any civil rights are being trampled.==

That's a fair, accurate, well-though-out statement.

==Married people have the right to over 1000 Federal benefits.==

Nobody stops a man who claims to be homosexual from marrying a woman who says she is homosexual. An individual's heterosexuality is not a prerequisite.

==It seems most reasonable for the State to get out of the marriage business altogether and offer only civil unions. Then religious institutions can define marriage however they like.==

You people have this option now.

==..the simple solution is to get the church out of the marrying business all together.==

And, yet, you cannot get God outta it, and, thus, you cannot get His Word outta it.

We shouldn't have to change our society, culture and country for

==Irrevelent to those under grace to stone my wife?==

That Jewish Law is not relevant to those who are not Jewish and, generally, longer relevant to those who are born again.

== It must be nice to have all the answers.==

I have the Word of God Which has all the answers, thanks.

Just curious:
replace gay with black in your first post and see if things are any clearer.

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
(California Initiative)

Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as "The J.A.I.L. Amendment."

1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

a. Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
b. Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
c. Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
d. Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
e. Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
f. Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.

2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.
3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.
4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.
5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.
6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.
7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.
8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.
9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.
10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.
11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.
12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.
13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.
14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.
15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.
16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.
17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.
19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.
20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.
21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.
23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

Copyrighted Library of Congress

I was trying to give "curious" food for thought but thanks for input as you seem to have special insight on sexual preferences.

Mr. Incredible: The Supreme Court of California has found homosexuals to be a "suspect class" in their original ruling granting the "right" to marriage. translation: homosexuals are a minority group so passing prop 8 did eliminate a right granted to a minority class.

Another issue: There is countless research that would repudiate your point that homosexuality is a choice. As a bare starter you find homosexual pairing in nature of animals who exhibit no ability for free choice but act only on instinct from birth.

==Our Founding Fathers gave courts the ability to intercede on behalf of the minority.==

What "minority"?

== The California Supreme Court, which is likely to review the law, is simply exercising its constitutional duty to protect the minority from a tyrannical majority.==

It is also empowered to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority.

All men and women of age may marry, according to the law.

Those who claim to be homosexual are men and women.

No one may same-sex marry.

THAT is equal protection and application.

'Nuff said.

==Mr. Incredible: The Supreme Court of California has found homosexuals to be a "suspect class" in their original ruling granting the "right" to marriage.==

However, the Court did NOT say that those who claim to be homosexual make up a PROTECTED class. Those who build model airplanes are a class. However, they are not a PROTECTED class. And, anyway, even if they -- those who claim to be homosexual -- are protected, the individuals in that class would have to show that, individually, ALL of them are stopped from marrying, which they are not, since they are men and women, and the law says that ALL of-age men and women may marry.

I have a Right to claim that I am Santa Claus.

However, I may not impose that Right on others so as to force them to treat me like Santa Claus.

Amazing how worked up we can become over ownership of a word-marriage. Orwellian.

==Amazing how worked up we can become over ownership of a word-marriage==

We're worked up about a matter that has always been.

Those who claim to be homosexual are worked up about trying to insert what has never been into what has always been, as though it has always been.

Being civil precedes being a majority, minority or an American voter. The voice of the voter in Proposition 8 was nothing less than fundamental civil law; an affirmation of marriage. Did I hear of unconstitutional discrimination by the many over the few? What is it called when opponents of Proposition 8 run to the courts (the few) to overturn the will of the people (the many)?
All men are bound by law, whether or not it be willful; either the law of God or the law of the land. The latter may be accepted willfully by some who have no regard for God or his law. Still others are brought into compliance by law enforcement and the courts, because, again, even before law enforcement and courts people have always moved from being uncivilized to being civil.

==I cant imagine a theocracy would give us the freedom prosperity longevity that we enjoy...==

More fear-mongering.

==... yet some sound as though they would prefer it.==

You hear wrong.

== I 4 1 could care less what your god says about anything. ==

If you "could care less," you still have room for caring.

What you mean to say is that you couldn't care less -- that is, that you have no room for caring about it.

In any case, we don't believe in god either. We believe in God.

Culture, society has always been slow to catch on. racism stubbornly lingers in some places. you watch-the rest of you will catch up to us in MA.

==Culture, society has always been slow to catch on.==

We've already caught on the the wiles of the Devil. That's why we aren't budging.

== racism stubbornly lingers in some places.==

Even Blacks caught on to this in Caifornia, saying that racism is not the same as opposing homosexuality.

== you watch-the rest of you will catch up to us in MA.==

You mean on the downslide. No way. We know Massachusetts is a lost cause and not a major player in the scheme of things.

Civil rights must never be allowed to be subjugated to "majority rule". You can howl all you want, but in the end, your anti-American discriminatory laws will be abolished.

"contested issues of public policy, such as the definition of marriage, should be settled at the ballot box, not through violence or the actions of activist judges"

Would you say that to the face of Mildred Loving were she still alive?

And howzabout we leave the "activist judges" to selecting "Presidents" instead?

As for the above poster (Your Name at 5:46pm Dec 14), this referendum was not a "legal election". The CA Constitution cannot be changed by a mere majority vote. It must be done with a 2/3 majority in the Legislature.

You also ask, "Is homosexual marriage a right?" Well, the answer, even though you don't happen to like it, is YES. That right was bestowed by the CASC which determined that the equal protections clause gives the exact same rights to all citizens. Equal means equal and all means all. Federally, there is not "right" to marry in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - for anyone, not even you betterosexuals.

It is my belief that when this issue reaches the US SC, they will have to rule in the identical fashion as the CA SC - because the US Constitution likewise has an equal protections clause.

And, you are wrong, we don't really give a rat's patootie if you accept us or our lives; we care that we are treated equally before the law. And we don't want to control your speech about us either. Heck, you can lie about us as much as you want, so long as we get equal treatment before the law.

"All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman"

That is the lamest excuse. Time was when you could have said 'All adults in the U.S. equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman - of the same race.

"the ballot measure was legal "

No, Matt, it wasn't.

1.) It was Un-Constitutional. It contravened the equal protections clause.

2.) The CA Constitution cannot be changed by a mere majority vote. It must be done with 2/3 approval of the Legislature.

For Just Curious ...

"I really wish that gays would use the idea of being in a union to confirm their devotion to one another."

Like the CAW? The AFL-CIO? Just funnin' ya, JC. Trouble is, what you wish for us has been outlawed in many States. They've either passed laws or changed their Constitutions to specifically prevent "unions" (or partnerships or any other euphemism) from taking place. For that matter, several States have gone even further, specifically forbidding any of the "affects of marriage" to accrue to any non-married couple (yes, even the str8 ones!). Thus, for instance, in Michigan, it is now illegal for an employer to give health benefits to the same sex spouse of a gay employee, even if it wanted to.

"I believe that unions would be the alternate for homosexuals that marriage is for heterosexuals, it allows them the same basic rights."

Then, I'm sorry, but your belief is simply wrong. There are some 1,176 federal benefits, rights and obligations that come with marriage that are not granted to same-sex couples because of a heinous little thinng called DOMA - the "Defence" of Marriage Act. Sorry, but you are wrong. Gay citizens are not allowed the same basic rights.

"I feel that with unions there are enough rights to one another. For example, if a homosexual couple has a union, they may still visit one another in the hospital, enjoy each others employer benefits etc."

Again, I'm sorry, but that simply is not true.

"I just want to understand why having the same rights isn't good enough just because it's defined by a different name."

Because gay citizens do not have the same rights. That's why it's not "good enough".

"I know as soon as I post this comment, I'm going to have some people jumping me and telling me it's not the same. Explain it to me. Nicely please."

I hope I haven't 'jumped on you'. I tried very hard to be nice. But it's difficult when untruths about gay people abound - and this blog thread doesn't help eliminate them.

"Your Name
December 4, 2008 6:45 PM

"Black is an immutable, human characteristic. There is a physical clue.

Having chosen the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option is mutable."

So, could you tell us, please, when you 'chose' to be heterosexual? Oops, I mean chose the heterosexual lifestyle. And also, tell us under what circumstances you could 'choose' to change that, since, per you, it is "mutable". We'd be very curious to hear your responses.

i don't believe in gay marriage. i don't think man is supposed to lay with another man, or woman with another woman. does that make me a homophobe? I'm not afraid of any of them. isn't that what a phobia is?

Dave, That makes you a busybody. Live and let live bro.