g*y Marriage ban via Constitutional Amendment <-- is that possible?

Question

Thanks for stopping by and weighing in...

I understand that the religious right in California is now planning on passing a Constitutional Amendment on the November ballot in order to keep g*y marriages from being legal. My question is: Can this be accomplished??

From what I understand, the State Supreme Court has already ruled that banning g*y marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, and thus illegal. So, how will some new Amendment make a difference? Does the law state that, no matter if it is discrimination or not, if its what the people want, then its okay to discriminate?? If a state policy change is as simple as getting the majority of voters to pass some Constitutional Amendment, then why the h**l do we pay state taxes?? Im sure I could get 98% of voters to agree to pass an Amendment banning state taxes as well....

Thanks for your time...

Answer 1

I&#039;m hoping not.   We can&#039;t go backward -- the LGBT community has waited so long to have the same rights the rest of us do.  I have all my fingers crossed, and my walking shoes on to go knocking on doors to spread the word one house at a time if necessary before the ballot comes out.  But I think folks have learned -- and grown up -- since passing prop 22 in 2000.

The Supreme Court struck down the ban earlier this month because it was unconstitutional.  Now the crazies are trying to change the constitution to accomodate their wants.  Then they could reinstate the ban and there would be no issue of constitutionality (just small-minded cruelty, which sadly is not explicitly illegal).

Answer 2

&quot;Intolerance, discourtesy and harshness are taboo in all good society and are surely contrary to the spirit of democracy.&quot;

-Mahatma Gandhi

Answer 3

It can be added as an amendment to the state Constitution.  (I think it requires a 75% vote rather than a simple majority, though).  However, if the Constitution also protects the citizens from discrimination there will almost certainly be lawsuits against it if it is added.  

I also seriously doubt that such a bill would be able to get enough support to be added as a Constitutional amendment, especially in California.  Let&#039;s hope it doesn&#039;t happen.

Answer 4

this will fail, simply because it violates the separation of church and state rule.......most people that are against g*y marriages are that way due to religion, as such, has no place in secular law

Answer 5

the courts ruled that the law was against the California constitution.. so yes... a constitutional amendment banning g*y marriage is the next step....

the next step by the pro group would be to argue that the California amendment violated the FEDERAL constitution...

Answer 6

The Constitutions (State and Federal) are the &quot;ultimate&quot; law of the land. Any and all laws of the entity in question (State or Federal Government) must  abide by the applicable Constitution.

Normally a super majority is required to amend a Constitution. (At least 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 75% of the state legislatures in the case of the Federal Constiutiton)

That is not the case in California. In 1911 the California Constitution was amended to allow the citizens to enact laws or amend the State Constitution by means of the &quot;Voter Initiative&quot;. This method bypasses the state legislature.

To enact a law by this method a petition must be signed by 5% of the voters in California...the law is then put on a  ballot and a simple majority (50.1%) will enact the law.

To amend the state Constitution, a petition must garner 8% of the voters...the proposed amendment is then put on the ballot and a simple majority enacts it.

If the proposed Amendment to ban g*y marriage gets on the ballot (proponents of the Amendment say they have already gotten enough signatures to put it on the ballot) and is voted for by the majority....then the courts will have no choice but to stop allowing same s*x marriages in California since the &quot;ultimate&quot; law of the land will then specifically prohibit it.

Any marriages performed in the interim (between June 14 and the time the new amendment is enacted) will remain valid since there is a clause in the Federal Constitution that prohibits retroactive laws. (You can&#039;t make a previous act illegal by passing a law after the act has taken place)

Answer 7

ban same s*x marriage

Answer 8

It&#039;s political posturing.

It essentially tries for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

It could never pass as I would guess that religious groups that do allow same s*x marriages (even if the state doesn&#039;t observe them) would have their 1st amendment rights violated by the Act. They would argue that it impinges the free exercise of their beliefs. So even if it was ever ratified the Supreme Court would be forced to overrule. The legislators know this but most people don&#039;t. So it&#039;s really posturing.

Answer 9

The court interprets that law. If the law changes, that court must reconsider its ruling based on the new law. Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench, but it is a increasingly popular tradition in liberal states.

Answer 10

The state Supreme Court ruled that the California Constitution guarantees to g*y couples the right to get married. That is why a state ban on g*y marriage is &quot;illegal&quot; as you put it. But the state Constitution can be amended and if it is, then the newer amendment trumps any previous amendments of the state constitution. So yes, a new amendment can override the state court&#039;s decision. Likewise, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on an issue regarding how to interpret the U.S. Constitution, a new amendment can be proposed and ratified for the purpose of reversing the Court&#039;s decision, and that has happened 4 times in our nation&#039;s history.

Answer 11

This is a good question!  Someone with brains does use this site!

I believe, according to the rules concerning amendments, it has to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislature, not a vote by the people.  I don&#039;t think San Francisco would let that happen in California.  As for a national amendment, there are too many people who believe it&#039;s not our place to make something that does not affect us illegal.  If you believe that being g*y is a sin, don&#039;t be g*y, but don&#039;t judge others when they do it because that&#039;s between them and their God.

Answer 12

The federal Constitution, and every state constitution, is a contract.  Amending the relevant constitution, by whatever means are prescribed in such constitution, amends the contract.

So yes, a constitutional amendment would supercede the Supreme Court decision.

BUT the federal Constitution, and many state constitutions, require an amendment by a &quot;supermajority&quot; vote - for the US Constitution, it would be 2/3 of both houses of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.  So there would have to be widespread agreement to pass an amendment.

Theoretically, if someone had the votes to, say, get rid of the Bill of Rights, they could.  But again, you&#039;d need an awfully large percentage of the country to agree to a change in order to get it through.

The concern of the people who say judges are exceeding their constitutional role is that sometimes four or five judges can make big changes in the law.  These critics allege that some judges make such decisions based on personal or political whim, and not the law.

So the question sometimes is, who does one trust?  The legislatures, or the judges?

Answer 13

What a lot of people don&#039;t realize is that 8 years ago, in 2000, when g*y marriage was first becoming a big thing, the voters in California passed a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, with 61% of the voters in favor of it. Then the Supreme court just came out and did, which basically said that that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. The proposition said nothing about g*y marriage, which is why the supreme court was able to shoot it down. The judges created a law, which is something they are not supposed to do, and many people don&#039;t even realize they have done it.

What the voters in Cali now want, and that will be on the ballot in November, is a Constitutional amendment, that will say &quot;only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.&quot; It already has 1.1 million signatures, which is many, many more than is needed, so it WILL be on the ballot come November, and polls show that it will most likely pass. A new amendment will overrule the judges decision, who were out of line in doing this.

The State Supreme court went out of their power by doing this, and the 3 judges who voted against this recent ruling, all did so because they deemed it an inappropriate use of judicial power. It is the voters job to make and pass laws, according to the Constitution, not the judges.

Answer 14

I seriously don&#039;t know what the big deal is. g*y people are living together, having s*x and raising families. What difference does a piece of paper make. It will give rights to g*y people when it comes to settling estates, getting health insurance and getting tax breaks. Things all other Americans enjoy. Why shouldn&#039;t they be treated the same.

Answer 15

The supreme court has ruled that the constitution, as it&#039;s currently written, bans g*y marriage because it&#039;s discriminatory against homosexuals.  So what they are proposing to do is to amend the discrimination clause in the constitution to carve out an exception for same s*x marriage.  Basically, they would put in a clause that reads something like &quot;notwithstanding article x*x (which is the clause that talks about discrimination) it shall be legal for the legislature to restrict marriage to couples of the opposite s*x&quot;.

Answer 16

many states have passed state amendments to ban g*y marriage...whether they will eventually be overturned or not remains to be seen...