A petition to undo the damage of proposition 8

If you have been watching the elections this week, then you are well aware of the passing of proposition 8 in California. It is an unfair law that takes away basic human rights and constitutionally protected rights from a group of people. Please go to the following address and read through the petition to the governor to re-examine and hopefully revoke proposition 8.



5 thoughts on “A petition to undo the damage of proposition 8

  1. After the historical elections of last week proving that we are ready for change and acceptance of difference., I can not for a minute wrap my thoughts around how this was able to have been allowed. In todays society the basic right to love is being taken away from thousands of people who only want the chance to be allowed the basic rights many of us take for granted….

    I can not express how disappointed I am with the governor of California. To take the constitutionally protected rights. Shame on you..

    I truly hope that this petition will make the change we all need.

  2. Could you please point to the source of the idea that Proposition 8 takes away “Constitutionally protected rights”? If, in fact, there had been any determination that the right of same sex couples to marry was Constitutionally protected, this amendment would be without legal force.

    You should also be aware that Governors do NOT have the “right to re-examine and overturn a law/proposition that is unconstitutional.” I’m not sure where that idea came from, but it is absolutely legally inaccurate. The role you describe is reserved to the judiciary.

    1. I apologize for taking so long to respond to your post.

      You requested that I point out where the right for homosexuals to marry is protected in the Constitution, and you pointed out my error with the rights of the governor.

      Addressing the latter first,you’re correct that the governor cannot just willy-nilly re-examine our overturn any law or proposition; however, he does have the responsibility to the citizens of his state to make sure that all constitutional rights are continually protected, and that no law or proposition denies any citizen his or her rights. Therefore, while not directly having the power, his influence and status can greatly turn the tide to stop injustice.

      Back to the topic of homosexual marriage, I will first point out that in a prior post of mine I discussed how the Supreme Court has never officially settled on what marriage is exactly, except that it existed prior to governmental bodies and that it is predominantly religious in setting and nature. If it is religious in setting, and we are a country that has freedom of religion, it becomes rather awkward to decide which religions’ version of marriage should we adhere to; additionally, should we adhere to any religious recognition of marriage if we have a separation of church and state. — — that’s just a side note, however.

      As to your request — according to the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Legally banning people from getting married purely because they practice homosexuality is respecting an establishment of predominately Christian religions. As we live in a country that allows all religions to exist peacefully, favoring any religious dogma will and has caused a problem.

      Of course I know what a response to this statement might be — Congress hasn’t yet made the law, only the state of California (among other states). Nevertheless, federal law supersedes state’s law, and federal law is supposed to be a check and balance system for each individual state in order to assure that all rights and privileges are being properly administered to all citizens.

      In the 14th amendment, section 1., it states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State
      shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” How can we define liberty? It’s such a broad concept, but briefly it is defined in the dictionary as “freedom from captivity; the right or power to do was one pleases.” Obviously the definition of liberty has limits because we can’t allow everyone in society to do exactly as the please. We put in certain stipulations to stop crime, murderer, and tyranny. However, what crime is being committed when two men or two women want to be recognized as legally married? Without religious implications, how are two consenting adults committing any crime by wanting to commit their lives to each other until death do they part?

      If people have moral issues with homosexuality — and moral issues are usually contrived from religious dogma– they have the right to disapprove of whatever they wish. However, they do not have the right to deny a group of people liberty. I think a passage in the Declaration of Independence says it best with the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s