[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Thu Nov 20 17:18:39 PST 2008 

You both have a point. One should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. In this case though, I think that the California Constitution states that it can be amended by an initiative. It is clearly constitutional according to the state constitution. Therefore the question becomes does the US. Constitution trump a  state constitution. It of course does. 
A judge should decide the case on the basis of a strict reading of the US Constitution, not on the basis of writing law from the bench.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Joseph Campbell josephc at wsu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:37:51 -0800
To: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" editor at lataheagle.com,  kjajmix1 at msn.com, vision2020 at moscow.com,  Tom Hansen thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

> That is not the issue. The issue is who decides whether gay marriage is OK?
> The general CA public, by popular vote? Or the California Supreme Court? I
> think that the latter is a better judge. Why? Let¹s ask the same question
> about your right to free speech, or mine. I don¹t want the general CA public
> to decide whether or not I have that right, and I¹m sure you would agree.
> What makes marriage different? I don¹t want them to tell me who I should
> marry either. Do you? Tell me that you don¹t see a problem with letting the
> public decide who you can and cannot marry?
> 
> 
> On 11/20/08 12:23 PM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Let's then.
> > The issue is gay marriage, not free speech.
> > 
> > From: Joseph Campbell <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:20 PM
> > To: Kai Eiselein, Editor <mailto:editor at lataheagle.com>  ; kjajmix1 at msn.com ;
> > vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
> > 
> > The question is who should decide matters of law: the people, by popular vote,
> > or judges, who have knowledge of the Constitution and legal precedent? I think
> > the latter. Personally, I feel that most of the things below that you find
> > absurd are in fact absurd. More the reason not to leave the vote up to the
> > general public.
> > 
> > Notice you did not answer whether or not you think that your right to free
> > speech hinges on their opinion. Do you? And if not that right, why others?
> > Let¹s stick to one issue at a time, and deal with the others later.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> > On 11/20/08 12:05 PM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Do societies not have the right to decide what is  acceptable and what isn't?
> >> Why not make polygamy legal?
> >> Why not let  brothers marry sisters or first cousins marry first cousins?
> >> (Other than the  inbreeding issue)
> >> Why not just make an amendment stating a marriage can be  between ANY
> >> consenting adults? That would be the best way, wouldn't it?
> >> I  can just hear the champagne corks popping as divorce lawyers celebrate the
> >> thought of multiple wives divorcing a husband.
> >> 
> >> From: Joseph  Campbell <mailto:josephc at wsu.edu>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:57 AM
> >> To: Kai  Eiselein, Editor <mailto:editor at lataheagle.com>   ; kjajmix1 at msn.com
> >> ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up  Gay Marriage
> >> 
> >> According to Wikipedia, ³Due  process (more fully due process of law) is the
> >> principle that the  government must respect all of the legal rights that are
> >> owed to a person  according to the law of the land, instead of  respecting
> >> merely some or most of those legal rights.²
> >> 
> >> Do you think  that rights are better served by allowing the general public to
> >> decide who has  the right to speak, to vote, to wed? If to wed, then why not
> >> to speak? Why  shouldn¹t the general public be allowed to determine whether
> >> or not you have  the right to speak?
> >> 
> >> I¹m trying to bring the issue home to something you  might relate to
> >> personally. Something to engage your empathetic  imagination.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On  11/20/08 11:37 AM, "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>  
> >>> I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a moment, and   to be clear I don't
> >>> give a rip about gay marriage one way or another.  Hey, if  if gay couples
> >>> want to keep divorce lawyers in business by  forking over  thousands of
> >>> dollars in fees and spend months going to  hearing after hearing  after
> >>> hearing, well, welcome to the hetero  world. Toss in a child or two and
> >>> becomes even more fun.
> >>> ...No  State shall make or enforce any law which  shall  abridge the
> >>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall  any
> >>> State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,  without  due
> >>> process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the   equal
> >>> protection of the laws."
> >>> Doesn't a referendum come under  "due   process"?
> >>> 
> >>> --------------------------------------------------
> >>> From:   "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, November  20, 2008  11:16 AM
> >>> To: <editor at lataheagle.com>;  <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;  <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>> Subject:  Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme  Court to Take Up Gay
> >>> Marriage
> >>> 
> >>>>> >>From Article 6 of the US  Constitution  -
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United   States which shall be
> >>>> made 
> >>>> > in Pursuance thereof; and all  Treaties  made, or which shall be made,
> >>>> under 
> >>>> > the Authority of  the United  States, shall be the supreme Law of the
> >>>> Land; 
> >>>> > and  the Judges in every  State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
> >>>> > Constitution or Laws  of any State to the Contrary  notwithstanding."
> >>>> > 
> >>>> >  -------------------
> >>>> >  
> >>>>> >>From the 14th Amendment to the US  Constitution -
> >>>> >  
> >>>> > "All persons born or naturalized in the United  States, and  subject to
> >>>> the 
> >>>> > jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the   United States and of the
> >>>> State 
> >>>> > wherein they reside. No State  shall  make or enforce any law which shall
> >>>> > abridge the  privileges or  immunities of citizens of the United States;
> >>>> nor  
> >>>> > shall any State  deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property,
> >>>> without 
> >>>> > due process  of law; nor deny to any person  within its jurisdiction the
> >>>> > equal  protection of the  laws."
> >>>> > 
> >>>> >  -------------------------------------
> >>>> >  
> >>>> > Now, which part of the  US Constitution are you struggling  with, Kai?
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > Tom  Hansen
> >>>> > Moscow,
> >>>> >  Idaho
> >>>> > 
> >>>> >   ---------------------------------------------
> >>>> > This message was  sent by  First Step Internet.
> >>>> >             http://www.fsr.com/
> >>>> > 
> >>>> >
> >>> Kai   Eiselein
> >>> Editor, Latah Eagle
> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> 
> >>>  =======================================================
> >>>  List   services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>  serving the   communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>                http://www.fsr.net
> >>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>> =======================================================
> >> 
> >> Kai  Eiselein
> >> Editor, Latah Eagle
> >> 
> > 
> > Kai Eiselein
> > Editor, Latah Eagle
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list