About Prop 8....

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It was done at least in part, if not primarily, to increase voter turnout among conservatives.

Hmmmm....

If it's true purpose is to try to slow down Obama's coronation, then I want a Yes for Prop 8 sign in my yard.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Just watch, many of those who are leading the Prop 8 charge will get the most prestigious callings in the future.

lawls - "prestigious"

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It was done at least in part, if not primarily, to increase voter turnout among conservatives.

Babs, Babs, ....... where do you come up with this stuff? Are you saying if the Cali Supreme Court hadn't overruled the will/vote of the people, it would have still been an issue?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

lawls - "prestigious"

I've known many in the Church who actually believe what Swart spews. It's clear he's bitter because he's never held one of those "prestigious" callings because he is far superior to those who have.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by exUte

Babs, Babs, ....... where do you come up with this stuff? Are you saying if the Cali Supreme Court hadn't overruled the will/vote of the people, it would have still been an issue?

If the people hadn't violated the California Constitution with Prop. 22, Prop. 8 wouldn't have been necessary.

Do you agree that constitutional principles should not be compromised even if it's the "will of the people"?

[TripletDaddy]

I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish.

Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job.

By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them).

The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally.

[creekster]

WHat makes nay of you think this wil be overruled by the Supreme Coutrt? On what basis? Given something like 30 states already define it this way, some by constiutional amendment, why will this one be over ruled?

The analogy to Zion's campo is a bit overwrought, in my estimation. ANyone supporting Prop 8 that feels so picked on as to comapre themselves to someone in ZIon's camp has a ery tender sensibility. I am in the middle of the battle zone here in the Bay Area, and it is nothing like Zion's camp.

The thought that prop 8 will allow the church to find fuure leaders is also bassackwards, at least as it has unfolded in our stake. The poepl they chose to lead the prop 8 effort were exactly thoise that had laready demonstrated a deep commitment to principelsof obedience and service. Many had laready served in bishopriocs, high councils, etc.

I can tell you this, I can't wait for the elcetion to be over.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish.

Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job.

By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them).

The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally.

Signed,

Judge Ferguson

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish.

Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job.

By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them).

The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally.

WHen I read the opiniion it ididn't strike me as a great example of reasoned jurisprudence. It seemed very political. You are, of course, correct, that court's overturn things all the time, but amending the constitution is also a legitmate response to a court doing so.

Indeed, amending the california constution is ridiculously easy. It is unlike the federal consitution and is now abotu the size of a phone book.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHen I read the opiniion it ididn't strike me as a great example of reasoned jurisprudence. It seemed very political. You are, of course, correct, that court's overturn things all the time, but amending the constitution is also a legitmate response to a court doing so.

Indeed, amending the california constution is ridiculously easy. It is unlike the federal consitution and is now abotu the size of a phone book.

I agree with you apeman. I am just opposed to the emotional rhetoric of "4 activist judges overturning the will of the people."

To the uninitiated, it gives the impression that these judges got together over lunch and decided on their own to take the initiative and overturn some elections. It is disingenuous at best.

I cannot confirm whether the decision was politically motivated, but I am certainly in zero position to sit here and claim that judges do not act with their interests in mind, so you could definitely be right.