Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (307074)	5/26/2009 7:48:35 PM
From: mph	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

CA Supremes on Prop 8: -Constitutional Law- Proposition 8, limiting marriage to a man and a woman, constitutes a permissible amendment to the California Constitution. The measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law but leaving undisturbed all the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in the state. As Proposition 8 does not "entirely repeal" or "abrogate" the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process, nor "fundamentally alter" the substance of state constitutional equal protection principles recognized in prior state supreme court ruling, Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment, not a revision, and therefore could lawfully be adopted through the initiative process. The distinction between an amendment and a revision does not depend upon the relative importance of the measure in question but depends upon the nature and scope of the proposed alteration. It must make "a far reaching change in the fundamental governmental structure or the foundational power of its branches as set forth in the Constitution," and a measure limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not meet this test. Strauss v. Horton - filed May 26, 2009 Cite as 2009 SOS 2869 Full text metnews.com