Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Monday, May 26, 2008
Same sex marriage
I support same-sex marriage. The civil right and incidents of civil marriage should be available to two consenting adults. I know a lot of Americans disagree. I know a lot of California Americans disagree. Finally, I know that those California Americans who disagree are not stupid. Through the initiative process, they enacted a law which bans same-sex marriage in California. That laws has been overturned.
I see that Article 18, section 3 of the California constitution gives the residents of California the right to amend the state constitution by initiative. But how? How many votes? If it's the same number of votes to enact a new law or amend the constitution, why not amend the constitution? Is there a stigma attached to a constitutional amendment?
I really don't know. If the voters of California can ban same-sex marriage by a simple majority vote for a constitutional amendment, why are they voting on this now, rather than 8 years ago in Prop 22? Is it the difference between refusing to recognize other states' marriages versus recognizing California marriages?
