News-Record.com

I'm calling BS on all of it, right now....regardless of which state it is.

Why this is even being discussed in our courts is beyond me. There are some very serious problems to deal with in this country - this not being one of them.

They need to stop wasting our tax dollars on such a ridiculous (non)issue.

I hear you but don't really agree with the "more important issues" argument. It's used all the time as a way of dismissing an initiative someone opposes but doesn't want to answer on the merits.

You could say there are more urgent issues right now than banning smoking in workplaces, but a lot of people think that's important so a bill is working its way through our legislature.

In California, opponents of same-sex marriage didn't ask for the issue to come up, but it did, so they felt bound to do something about it -- and they are afforded that right. So there you have it.

The proposed constitutional amendment in North Carolina, on the other hand, certainly is not needed at this time to assure that marriage will be limited to one man and one woman in this state.

"In California, opponents of same-sex marriage didn't ask for the issue to come up, but it did, so they felt bound to do something about it -- and they are afforded that right. So there you have it."

Doug, the LDS organization sent thousands of volunteers and millions of dollars to California in an effort to influence this vote. And yes, there was out-of-state influence working in the other direction, too. My point is, if judges feel that the California Constitution was improperly amended, I'm not sure they would be wrong.

Outside influence doesn't matter. There were millions and millions of dollars spent by outside organizations trying to influence our U.S. Senate and governor's elections last year, but that doesn't invalidate the results. Only state residents vote.

People in California contending that the constitution was improperly amended simply didn't like the outcome. They're entitled to try to re-amend the constitution through the same process.

I also recall that Prop 8 opponents brought this improper amendment argument before the Supreme Court prior to the vote and were denied. If the Supreme Court had constitutional grounds to block the referendum, it should have done so then and spared everyone all this turmoil now.

I'd like to see a court deem any government-sanctioned marriage as unconstitutional. It seems to me a denial of equal protection if the law treats a single person differently than a married person. Mark it, this is an area where I think big government has screwed things up.

But if the government insists on being involved, I've never heard an argument approaching logical against gay marriage. However, I don't really see how the court can overturn the constitutional amendment. There's a clear trajectory on this issue that will result in legal gay marriage within a decade or two anyway.

That trajectory requires some federal override of states' authority to define marriage within their own jurisdictions. I expect some effort in that regard within the next eight years, assuming a second Obama term and continued Dem majorities in Congress. Sometime after that, states may begin to withdraw legal recognition of marriage altogether.

My point is - particularly in California - where there is supposedly an ENORMOUS financial crisis - to the point where state workers run the risk of possible IOU's for paychecks - should they REALLY be spending money to debate same sex marriage right now?

Perhaps my wording was off kilter - but then again, I don't think any time is a good time to spend however many thousands or millions of dollars debating and legislating such an issue.

At the very least - prioritize debates and legislation. You're request isn't critical, so when we resolve matters that concern the majority of constituents, we'll consider hearing your issue.

I would posit that the outside influence on Senatorial elections is (somewhat) different, in that U.S. Senators impact the whole nation, not just their own state.

But you're right, Californians decided this issue by voting. But I have to say, I shudder at the thought of what our U.S. Constitution would look like if all it took was 8% of signatures to get something on the ballot, and 52% of the popular vote to get the amendment inserted.

You can argue that Californians chose their own methods to amend their Constitution, but that doesn't make it wise or right.

I get it, but I don't know how you put off people who are asserting their legal rights.

Individuals pursuing what they viewed as their right to marry someone of the same gender had a right to take their case to the courts.

Individuals unhappy with the Supreme Court's interpretation of a constitutional rights had their own right to propose an amendment through a well-established initiative and referendum process.

You can question people's judgment but I don't think you can tell them, sorry, we're in a bit of a budget pinch, do you mind not claiming your rights just now?

Your rights don't come and go with budget surpluses and deficits.

We have pending legislation here in North Carolina that proposes a similar initiative and referendum process. Certainly, the many California adventures with this form of people power should help inform the debate here.

(Although there really won't be a debate here because legislative leaders don't want one. But we can toss it around on the blogs.)

It looks like the new amendment should stick because it followed California's amendment procedures. However, IMHO, those procedures (all that is required is a majority vote in an election) are crazy. Some type of electoral super majority should be required to change a constitution.

North Carolina doesn't require a supermajority vote of the people to amend our constitution. But then, a proposed amendment requires a vote of the legislature and the governor's signature to get on the ballot in the first place, so there's more of a deliberate process.

The way our legislature works, however, one powerful legislative leader can logjam the path from proposal to ballot, even if supermajorities might support a measure.

I don't know what the best system is. Maybe the federal amendment process.

Please people, stop focusing on the gay marriage issue. This much larger, and more fundamental than a single issue. No matter the issue, amending the Constitution is the proper way to deal with changes. It's in the Constitution. The law was followed. Why does the left have such huge problems with Constitutions, federal or state? I suspect that even the Crazyfornia Supreme Court understands that prop 8 was constitutionally correct!

California is certainly a case study in the excesses of both government and democracy, both of which are fine things within limits.

Personally, I can't see why government should concern itself at all with what a marriage is or isn't. That said, overturning the legally expressed will of the people is a truly frightening thing.

Doug, you might want to reconsider your column next week.

It is my understanding that about 15 gays/lesbians filed suit in US District Court in Massacusetts to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This means North Carolina theoretically could be forced to recognize gay marriages from other states if the litigation succeeds. Perhaps if the state of NC had its own constitutional provision, it would have some force when considered against what the the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution would seem to require. Our state law would probably be less likely to protect us in that instance, it seems to me.

But I am not a lawyer. Show me how I am wrong.

Thanks, Joe.

I can't say you're wrong, and I would strongly oppose any federal effort to overrule North Carolina's authority to set its own definition of marriage.

I'll be addressing a different issue raised in the state House bill.

I think it is good that you would oppose a federal effort to override our state's authority, Doug. The problem is that once the courts write the law, our own opinions don't matter any more. We are stuck with it. Do you really believe the Democratic leadership in Raleigh is going to take aggressive action against gay marriage once the courts have made it legal?

That is why the proposed marriage amendment is needed. We should not entrust this issue to the judiciary-- because the judiciary cannot be trusted with it.

Joe Hackney and Marc Basnight are being highly disingenuous when they make believe that such an amendment is unnecessary.

When the feds make a push on this, they'll do it in a way that overrides state constitutions. It won't matter if North Carolina has a marriage amendment.

Our own courts have given no indication that they would follow same-sex marriage rulings in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Doug, good column and good answers. We disagree on whether SSM should be allowed, I suspect. However, there's a subtlety missing here.

Bills of Rights are supposed to protect minorities (whehter racial or ethnic, religious or political) from abuse by majorities. In 1911, I believe, California adopted this initiative amendment provision to control its legislature. I don't believe that anyone intended to make it possible for a majority of those who vote at the ballot box to strip a suspect class of a fundamental right. That seems like a revision to me, and in California, that requires 2/3 of each house of the legislature AND a majority of the people. The notion that we have opened up this type of change at the State level is very dangerous.

In California, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that protections in this state and under its constitution are separate from those under the COTUS. And it matters for some state-protected rights where parallel federal protection is under attack(abortion is one of them). Should federal protection fall, Californians may find themselves trying to fend off an attack on the express privacy clause in the Constitution by a vocal minority showing up at the polls. Leave alone what might happen if more substantial federal rights, such as free speech or free exercise were clipped by the USSC.

I do not expect that SSM will prevail in CA. But if Proposition 8 is upheld, I think lots of people beyond the gay community are going to be nervous about the precedent it sets, which could create interesting coalitions the next time this question comes on the ballot.

I hear you on North Carolina's more restrictive approach to amendment. But if Bills of Rights are to mean anything, they cannot be so easily amended as to permit a mere majority of those actually voting (never a majority of voters) to make changes to fundamental rights.

Doug

The really nice thing is all of us don't get to decide on the validity of the law. The judges do.

The buck has to stop somewhere
.

End of argument.