Prediction: California Supreme Court will Negate Proposition 8

I don’t think any one issue has polarized the people of California and the United States as a whole.
Last year, California passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, that defines marriage as only between a man and woman and would amend the California Constitution to reflect that.
Every previous attempt to pass similar amendment propositions were thrown out by the California courts.
I predict that the California courts, who have done everything within their power in the past to force homosexual “marriage” down the throats of Californians, will also negate Proposition 8.
Here’s how they will do it:
There are two ways to change the California Constitution, one being a “revision” and the other being an “amendment”.
A revision requires approval of 2/3 of the California State Senate, 2/3 of the California State Assembly, and 2/3 of the voters on Election Day. A revision is defined as a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution”.
An amendment, on the other hand, only requires the majority from the voters and is defined as “a less extensive change in one or more of [the constitution’s] provisions.
Proposition 8 was passed as an amendment. It added Article 1, Section 7.5 to the California Constitution, wich said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
So is this a revision or an amendment?
My guess is that the courts, who, as I stated above, has tried to impose the homosexual agenda on Californians, will decide that Proposition 8 is a revision instead of an amendment and therefore void.
Let’s continue to watch this issue and see if I’m correct.

Several members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee filed a friend-of-the-court brief last week asking the California Supreme Court to overturn [Proposition 8]. The Associated Press reports the committee voted 7-3 to support a resolution saying citizens lacked the authority to put the homosexual “marriage” ban directly to voters.

Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute says they have taken another step. “[They are having] the legislative branch intervene and encourage the judicial branch in its ruling,” she explains. “So, basically they’re thumbing their nose at the will of the people and trying to tell the court how it should rule in the upcoming decision on whether Proposition 8 should be a valid amendment to the constitution.”

Lawmakers also argue that the amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman discriminates against homosexuals. One assemblyman compared the situation to racial equality, saying that interracial marriages might still be illegal if the issue were left to public opinion rather than the courts.

Original Link.

10 Responses to “Prediction: California Supreme Court will Negate Proposition 8”

  1. Joe says:

    Christ would be ashamed if he knew his modern followers behave the way you do. Trust me, it is not part of any agenda that homosexuals want to marry. They just want the same chance at happiness that you take for granted. You are actively campaigning to oppress a group of people. Take a good look in the mirror. Whatever sins homosexuals are guilty of, I don’t think they have to worry as much as you do.

  2. Steve says:

    Joe,
    Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your views very much.
    What do you think Jesus would find shameful about my opposition to homosexual “marriage”? I’d be interested to know.
    In the meantime, maybe I can hit on the points you might use and let you know my thoughts.
    Is it my perceived lack of “love” for the homosexuals? I’ve asked others this question before, but let me state it again; which shows more love, letting someone continue a self destructive lifestyle and not stopping them because it might hurt their feelings, or coming under fire, facing rants, threats and disparagement for tying to stop them?
    The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. God is unchanging in everything, so it is safe to say that what was a sin in Old and New Testament times is still a sin today. Jesus never did anything to encourage people to continuing in a sinful existence. He said numerous times “go and sin no more”. Jesus would have told the homosexual to “go and sin no more”.
    Now back to homosexual “marriage”. Isn’t normalizing and making a sin seem correct and good encouraging the person struggling with that particular sin to continue to do that sin? It would be like handing an alcoholic a bottle of alcohol and telling him it’s OK to drink, or a gambler a deck of cards and telling him it’s OK to continue to gamble away the income his family need to survive.
    I believe that Jesus would appreciate my efforts to oppose making the sin of homosexuality “normal and good”.

  3. Chris says:

    Why do you think I subscribe to your perspective about moral rights and wrongs as you infer them from your beliefs about Christian teachings? As much as it seems that many Christians would have us all believe, our country was never conceived, and in fact was designed specifically NOT to be a theocracy – not Christion nor otherwise. That translates to mean that as much as you might feel inclined, you don’t have a right to impose (nor to ask the state to impose on your behalf) your religious beliefs on me or anyone else.

    If you would like to object to the historic fact of religious freedom in our country (and that includes the right to be a non-believer), would you be agreeable to allowing a buddhist to impose his views and beliefs upon you and your family? I think you’d cry out that you would surely have been wronged, and how could that be tolerated.

    Please realize that I will always defend your rights to believe as you choose, but I will fight you if you try to impose your morality choices upon others. That, my dear Christian friend, is the reason my ancestors took up arms – namely Freedom and Liberty. That, my dear Christian friend, is the reason that many original settlers risked all that they might have – leaving religioius persecution.

    I don’t understand how you think it is your business, though as for me, you are welcome to judge my choice of lifestyle however you choose. But I will remind you that my (and most likely your) ancestors fought wars to preserve my freedom to live in our country with equal access to ALL freedoms and rights. Your claim on Christian sanctity does not qualify you for special priviledge under our country’s Constitution. Neither does it qualify you to claim for yourself a right to enforce your views upon others, making them somehow subservient to your views.

    In fact, I could not care less about your views. Believe as you wish and proclaim whatever you feel you must. But please stop trying to impose your righteous beliefs on me. Stop standing in the way of me recieving the same civil rights that you enjoy. . .or prepare stand quietly by in the future when someday your rights are trampled in the name of someone else’s god.

  4. Dan says:

    The people have spoken and Steve is outnumbered, Joe, Chris and Dan have all stated that you cannot use your personal Christian views to oppress and entire segment of the population. It is quite simply un-American. Therefore, gay marriage should be allowed… The demographics are against you Steve, and eventually the gay agenda will succeed. You’d better get used to it…
    The Gay Agenda:
    No. 1 Equality
    No. 2 See number 1….
    By the way, Steve, sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. Do you remember when you chose to be hetersexual? If so, when?

  5. Steve says:

    “By the way, Steve, sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. Do you remember when you chose to be hetersexual? If so, when?”

    That is such a tired argument. You are not born with homosexuality. Period. Give it up and admit that it is lifestyle choice.

  6. Starbix says:

    Maybe he’ll admit it when you admit that Christianity is also a “lifestyle choice” and therefore subject to discrimination and fewer civil rights. You can’t have it both ways. By the way, I don’t know that either side in the nature/nurture argument on homosexuality is true. I’ve seen evidence from both sides and have yet to be convinced either way.

  7. Steve says:

    “I’ve seen evidence from both sides and have yet to be convinced either way.”

    And why doesn’t that surprise me…

  8. Steve says:

    Starbix,
    We’ve been over this and over this.
    First off, there is no such thing as a “right” to marry. Secondly, they have the same marriage “rights” (for lack of a better term) as heterosexual people.

  9. Starbix says:

    I don’t know why it should surprise you that I wait for objective evidence to convince me and not just jump to a preconceived notion.

    You can, and I assume did, marry the person who is the one that you love and wish to spend your life with. Can someone who is gay do the same?

  10. Patrick says:

    A book I would highly recommend on this issue is by renowned Anthropologist Patrick Chapman Ph. D. (Not me of course) He is an evangelical Christian, mind you; but his standpoint and evidence may be surprising.

    It is titled “Thou Shalt Not Love.” It is published by Haiduk Press.

    http://www.amazon.com/Thou-Shalt-Not-Love-Evangelicals/dp/0971468621

    There are reviews of this book on Amazon, I suggest you read them, or check out the book for yourselves.

Leave a Reply

*