California has recently overturned Proposition 8, a vote in which people decided to ban gay marriage in the state. The judge in the case decided that the ban was unconstitutional. He said that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law, including gay people. However, gay marriage is still banned in California until passed through other courts in the state.
Gay Marriage: a man who marries a man or a woman who marries a woman.
This is how you present an article to young children on a subject that is contraversial. You do not even try to expalin that the majority of the people have spoken and they voted down Porposition 8. The citizen’s of that state have a right to vote on laws that effect them and a judge does not have a right to over turn thier vote because he does not agree with them. You are not giving these children the entire story. How are they suppose to learn to make an informed choice on a subject with out both sides of the story. I think you are doing an injustice to these children and will not donate money to Neighbors in need if this is how the money will be spent. I will be letting the other mebers of my church know exactley how bias this paper is and what groups like the SEIU influence these children.
Ignore Jackie Smith. The article is balanced. It even specifically says that Prop. 8 resulted from “a vote in which people decided to ban gay marriage,” the very thing she’s complaining about.
Her rant about courts, however, is just factually wrong. If a court determines that a state law violates the Constitution–as the judge in this case did–then the Constitution trumps the law. That’s Constitutional Law 101. Laws enacted by ballot initiative have to comply with the Constitution just like any other laws or regulations do.
Jackie Smith is just looking for an excuse to rant and rave about this story because she’s an anti-gay militant. Ignore her.
Ignore Steve Clark. Why do we have elections and vote if a judge can just overturn the will of the people? Issues should not be put on the ballot if a member of the judicial system is going to deny what the people voted for. The majority spoke. Steve is just mad because the law didn’t work in his favor. No one is saying that the gay community doesn’t have rights. Obviously someone wanted gay marriage to be legalized and it was put to a vote. The voters voted no and THAT is what should be upheld. Does that mean that anything else that is on the ballot that someone doesn’t agree can just be ignored?