How did Prop 8 even get put up for a vote?

I'm not too sure but that's something to think about.

Prop 8 is a ballot proposition that was proposed and was passed for voting on the account that it could amend the constitution. It's put to ruling on the favor of the majority, like a jury vote. You can't make immediate appeals or anti-propositions at the time of the election only afterwards, this is a general rule of the judiciary.

The question of whether or not it is constitutional is still in question. You can't deny the petition being voted on and passed if people voted for it, but you can make an appeal or anti-petition afterwards, which is what people are aiming to do right now.

it came up by popular referendum ("popular redress"), which is available to anyone for any cause. If you get enough people to sign your petition, you're in.

Constitutions don't usually don't have any restriction on their own amendments; that is, whether the subject is germain, etc. Theoretically, an amendment could be adopted using the legislative ploy of "amend to strike all", which would void the entire constitution and replace it with whatever was in the "amendment." Constitutions can confer rights, they can also deny them; they just never have been used for that purpose before now. Prop 8 amends the California constitution; therefore, it can proclaim anything to be a guiding principle.

As for arguments pro and con, you're preaching to the choir here. Exactly why the voters approved Prop 8 (and Arizona's Prop 102) is a mystery. Maybe the voters just bought into the "obvious" argument ("everyone KNOWS that marriage requires a man and a woman) or the fear-mongering, that teachers will all now teach every student that a man SHOULD marry another man, or God forbid, that the Bible is wrong!

From a religious standpoint, literalists can't afford to have any single line in their Bible proven to be wrong and that's why they have so much invested in not allowing rational arguments over any aspect of homosexuality (or the non-existence of dinosaurs).

Bottom line: we just have to try harder explaining what it's like to be gay, what it means, what it doesn't mean, for us and for everyone else.

I would like to first say that just because someone voted in favor of Prop 8 doesn't make them "anti gay". Also just because someone's religion tells them something is a "sin" doesn't mean they are anti the person committing the sin....because there is not one person who is sinless. No one has the right to judge another.

So here is my Lehman's understanding of the historical constitutional definition of marriage in California and what Prop 8 was really about. I think the real misnomer here is that Prop 8 was about "protecting marriage" or about "equality for all". It wasn't about that at all, at least not technically. It was about coming against judges who took upon themselves more power than is granted to them. And the following explains why I believe that.

Prior to 1977, our State Constitution defined marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."

However there were other portions of the Constitution that specifically mentioned gender in relation to marriage. A state assembly committee decided that under existing law, our Constitution was not clear as to whether or not same-sex couples could marry. So in 1977, the State Assembly amended the definition to remove the ambiguity and eliminate any further confusion.

As of 1977, the State Constitution defines marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." However, a separate provision was added that stipulated: "A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state."

Prop 22 was written to eliminate that provision, stating that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

As I understand it, the San Francisco judges decided that specifically Prop 22 went against our Constitutional rights and removed it, which doesn't really make sense to me because Prop 22 was not added to define marriage, it was added to eliminate the provision that stated California would recognize marriage license of same-sex couples from out of state. With that being said, the following would have to be true:

If Prop 8 hadn't passed, then the only thing it would have done was overturn Prop 22. It still wouldn't have made marriage between same-sex couples legal in CA unless the license was obtained out of State. But also, I believe the following is true that a state constitutional amendment cannot be overturned by the state Supreme Court. So the judges didn't have the authority to do what they did in the first place.

Again, as I understand it, judges are appointed to interpret law, not make it. It is the legislature that makes (or writes law) which then goes to the Governor's desk for passage or veto. For example, bill number AB 43 "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" was put on the Governor's desk and he vetoed it, stating that "the governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state." Meaning the court interprets the law or the constitution as it is written or the people put it to a vote. Schwarzenegger vetoed it twice. Once in 2005 and once again in 2007.

Now, how this relates on a federal level, I am not sure. I've heard arguments using the 10th and the 14th amendments to support the thought that denying gays the right to marry at the state level goes against the federal constitution. However, that is all a bit too complicated for me to figure out at this time, but I am working on it. Because while religious beliefs are a good enough argument for me, unfortunately it isn't when it comes to state or federal issues and I don't like using religious beliefs to back up an argument where people are suggesting hate (H8) as a contributing factor.

As I said, this is just my Lehman's attempt at understanding. If something in here is not accurate, let me know. I really want to understand this. There is a right and a wrong way to make gay marriage legal. Unfortunately, Prop 8 was not the way to accomplish it.

And your ingredient is? I even have seceded from ALL religions because of the fact of all the dislike in touch in maximum of them. And the hypocrisy. The Catholics say they do no longer pray to idols and that they don't seem to be consistent with Paganism. Lie. Christians say they stick to Jesus Christ and the Bible and yet they forget approximately approximately Matt7:a million-5 re: judging others, and that they misread Leviticus to study as they want. The Muslims seem to have a great disdain for the Christians whether the religions are in reality comparable. i've got not seen a undesirable Buddhist, yet that feels like an "ist" of a few variety. and that i say sorry to the non-judgmental, loving, compassionate, forgiing Christians obtainable because of the fact particular i be attentive to you exist and that i admire you with a fondness yet i'm jaded via ones I describe above, no longer you. yet, i'm nevertheless undecided what you're question is right here. Are you saying that the Jews are in want of gay Marriage? And is l. a., Louisiana or did you advise L.A. as in la? no longer that it concerns. basically attempting to make as plenty experience as achieveable out of this fact. one in each of my maximum suitable acquaintances is Jewish and he became into the main accepting once I introduced my gaymanship! one in each of HIS maximum suitable acquaintances is a Rabbi's son and he had no prob with me the two. And now i'm getting too serious so it's time for me to bypass away. Peace, Love, and lightweight! i'm Dartagnon

well,

i have some points about it, gays or homo or bisexual are wroong.

some believe it is right, and it is ok for them if all bpeople became that way,

why were women created, and why were there men, two sexes, compatible with each others,

do you think people that wemen were created to leave them and have lust with men, mean man to man, or the opposite,

men created to women and the vice versa,

well, if we became all gays, then who will beget the next generation, dont tell me that can be by others sperm by donation, huh, thats sucks,

well, we all were born straight, god didnt want gays or bi, some created it, have you ever found someone was created or born gay, so we all started straight and so being straight is the solution,

i believe that prep act, must have not been admitted, and must be deleted.

all the best.

prop 8 is a constitutional amendment ballot, therefore cannot be unconstitutional. constitutional amendment ballots are put up by the people for the people. just because a small minority disagrees doesn't mean it can't be put on a ballot. that is what democracy is all about, someone proposes something, its voted on , if the majority favor it , it passes. if you don't like democracy go start your own country.

Why do you get the change the terms? Here it is in NON-RELIGIOUS. Why should people be given special rights based on behavior?

This film gives two scenarios of Prop 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQY6qeUxhTg

DO LESBIANS GET MARRIED?