Prop 8 oral arguments, Part I

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Aaron Titus says:

    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.”

  2. A.J. Sutter says:

    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?