Supreme court vs popular vote

[blackchipjim]

I find it very interesting that the people of California have voted against the right for like sexs to marry. There are plenty of people that feel that it should not of been voted on since the High Court ruled it into law awhile back. I'm starting to get really confused about alot of things in this country and the way things are going. If I got this right it goes something like this. The people ( the majority vote) have the right to vote on the other people's rights( the minority). It sounds kinda scarey to me because I thought rights in this country were inalienable. I have seen our rights eroded by voting them out by a bunch of self serving morons which has got to stop. blackchipjim

[Guynoire]

From my understanding the court's ruing had nothing to do with the right of the individual but with the procedures of the state.

Brief history; One part of the California constitution stated it would accept marriage licenses from any other state. California also had a law against gay marriage. For a long time these two things did not conflict, courts don't take hypothetical cases, but of course eventually a gay couple from Massachusetts moved to California and demanded that the state accept their marriage license under the state constitution. They were clearly correct so the judge declared the law unconstitutional as it conflicted with the state constitutional duty to accept marriages from Massachusetts. Since any law banning gay marriage would be unconstitutional the voters only choice to eliminate gay marriage was to change the constitution which they did.

If you're upset about a majority imposing constraints on a minority this has nothing to do with the failure of the government, the government proceeded exactly as it's designed to, but with the failure of democracy. Despite what they told you in grade school democracy is very far from a fair and perfect system. A prime example of democracy is a lynch mob. Unless the right is specifically defined in the federal or state constitution, and even those can be changed, your freedoms can be restricted by the will of others.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by blackchipjim

I find it very interesting that the people of California have voted against the right for like sexs to marry. There are plenty of people that feel that it should not of been voted on since the High Court ruled it into law awhile back. I'm starting to get really confused about alot of things in this country and the way things are going. If I got this right it goes something like this. The people ( the majority vote) have the right to vote on the other people's rights( the minority). It sounds kinda scarey to me because I thought rights in this country were inalienable. I have seen our rights eroded by voting them out by a bunch of self serving morons which has got to stop. blackchipjim

The beginning of wisdom... better late than never. zg

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Guynoire

If you're upset about a majority imposing constraints on a minority this has nothing to do with the failure of the government, the government proceeded exactly as it's designed to, but with the failure of democracy. Despite what they told you in grade school democracy is very far from a fair and perfect system. A prime example of democracy is a lynch mob. Unless the right is specifically defined in the federal or state constitution, and even those can be changed, your freedoms can be restricted by the will of others.

I feel that I have a Constitutional Right to take drugs. zg

[GeorgeD]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

I feel that I have a Constitutional Right to take drugs. zg

I don't disagree, but the State and majority has ruled against that and put it into law. They can since there is nothing specifically in the constitution saying certain drugs cannot be made illegal or even illegal in certain circumstances (w/o a script)

I guess you have to get busted, argue your case all the way to the Supreme Court and hopefully Zengrifter VS state of mind will grant equal protection to drug users.

What was this discussion about again? Whew! Heavy.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by blackchipjim

I find it very interesting that the people of California have voted against the right for like sexs to marry. There are plenty of people that feel that it should not of been voted on since the High Court ruled it into law awhile back. I'm starting to get really confused about alot of things in this country and the way things are going. If I got this right it goes something like this. The people ( the majority vote) have the right to vote on the other people's rights( the minority). It sounds kinda scarey to me because I thought rights in this country were inalienable. I have seen our rights eroded by voting them out by a bunch of self serving morons which has got to stop. blackchipjim

Certain rights are inalienable. I never heard of the right of same sex individuals to marry before? When did this become a right? It may be a fact. It may be desireable. It may even be a good thing. But when did it become a right?

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by blackchipjim

I find it very interesting that the people of California have voted against the right for like sexs to marry. There are plenty of people that feel that it should not of been voted on since the High Court ruled it into law awhile back. I'm starting to get really confused about alot of things in this country and the way things are going. If I got this right it goes something like this. The people ( the majority vote) have the right to vote on the other people's rights( the minority). It sounds kinda scarey to me because I thought rights in this country were inalienable. I have seen our rights eroded by voting them out by a bunch of self serving morons which has got to stop. blackchipjim

Tyranny of the majority.

[GeorgeD]

Originally Posted by QFIT

Tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of the Mormons.

They're alleged to have spent many millions on Prop 8.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by GeorgeD

Tyranny of the Mormons.

They're alleged to have spent many millions on Prop 8.

And the Evangelicals. And the Fundamentalists. And the Catholics. And atheist social conservatives.

The Constitution isn't a static document, it's a living document, able to be modified as people see fit. There are no such thing as inalienable rights - only those which are granted by a Constitution.

That being said, modifying a Constitution with 52% of the vote is utterly retarded. The U.S. Constitution is only modified with a 75% vote of the states, ensuring that the Constitution doesn't get modified over and over again as the political winds change.

[gDGBD]

Originally Posted by aslan

Certain rights are inalienable. I never heard of the right of same sex individuals to marry before? When did this become a right? It may be a fact. It may be desireable. It may even be a good thing. But when did it become a right?

Last June, when the California Supreme Court held that the California constitution (as then worded) conferred such a right.