Comments on: Prop 8 oral arguments, Part I http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/prop_8_oral_arg_1.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Prop 8 Update | Times & Seasons, An Onymous Mormon Blog http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/prop_8_oral_arg_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-63845 Prop 8 Update | Times & Seasons, An Onymous Mormon Blog Fri, 22 May 2009 20:54:15 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/03/prop-8-oral-arguments-part-i.html#comment-63845 [...] previously blogged some analysis of the case. Like most other observers, I expect that the court will reject both the revision/amendment [...] [...] previously blogged some analysis of the case. Like most other observers, I expect that the court will reject both the revision/amendment [...]

]]> By: A.J. Sutter http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/prop_8_oral_arg_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-44190 A.J. Sutter Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:07:15 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/03/prop-8-oral-arguments-part-i.html#comment-44190 Thanks for the explanation, Kaimi. On a more philosophical note, I wonder if Jerry Brown's natural law argument has its roots in his Jesuit training? Thanks for the explanation, Kaimi.

On a more philosophical note, I wonder if Jerry Brown’s natural law argument has its roots in his Jesuit training?

]]> By: Aaron Titus http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/prop_8_oral_arg_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-44189 Aaron Titus Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:07:51 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/03/prop-8-oral-arguments-part-i.html#comment-44189 In California, a "Revision" means essentially "to change the structure of the state government." Abolishing the Judiciary, diminishing the authority of the Executive branch, or delegating the legislative power to some other branch than the Legislature, for example, would be an extreme examples of Constitutional Revisions (some of which, incidentally, might violate the US Constitution). In this case, to argue that legislation about the institution of Marriage constitutes a Revision seems like a stretch to me. The sexual orientation equal protection argument also doesn't seem as clear-cut as some Prop 8 opponents make it out to be. There is a valid argument that the Constitutional amendment does not address sexual orientation, just sex. Though the right may be essentially useless for many, Heterosexuals and homosexuals have precisely the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual orientation. I also have a hard time buying the AG's Natural Law argument that the People lack the power to amend the Constitution against the terms of the Constitution. It seem rather counter-intuitive. After all, by definition almost every Constitutional Amendment is, by its nature, Unconstitutional until enacted into law. Otherwise it would not be called an Amendment, it would be called a "Reaffirmation." In California, a “Revision” means essentially “to change the structure of the state government.” Abolishing the Judiciary, diminishing the authority of the Executive branch, or delegating the legislative power to some other branch than the Legislature, for example, would be an extreme examples of Constitutional Revisions (some of which, incidentally, might violate the US Constitution).

In this case, to argue that legislation about the institution of Marriage constitutes a Revision seems like a stretch to me. The sexual orientation equal protection argument also doesn’t seem as clear-cut as some Prop 8 opponents make it out to be. There is a valid argument that the Constitutional amendment does not address sexual orientation, just sex. Though the right may be essentially useless for many, Heterosexuals and homosexuals have precisely the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I also have a hard time buying the AG’s Natural Law argument that the People lack the power to amend the Constitution against the terms of the Constitution. It seem rather counter-intuitive. After all, by definition almost every Constitutional Amendment is, by its nature, Unconstitutional until enacted into law. Otherwise it would not be called an Amendment, it would be called a “Reaffirmation.”

]]>