Hideousmonster, please don't dodge the questions. Have you read the decision? Yes or no? I will admit that I have not and don't likely intend to. Since you're taking a stand on this, and making a specific claim, I will ask you to back it up. Your reasoning is intriguing, but before we discuss that any further, I request that you provide the facts to back up your characterization of the decision. Already you've amended your statement once, so now I'm more concerned and insistent on this point than I was before.
I've read enough about it to know that it was not constitutionally sound. Here's the gist: The voters passed a law prohibiting homosexual marriage. The court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage violates a clause in the constitution which guarantees a right to privacy. Yet marriage is a publically officiated institution, which results in a change in how the government recognises the people involved. There is nothing in the constitution which even vaguely indicates that marriage is a privacy issue. Essentially, they pretended there were statements in the constitution which technically not only didn't exist, but which were in conflict with how the government had been treating marriages for generations.
C'mon. This is hardly what I asked for. You have reasserted your claim here, but failed to back it up for a third time. Please outline the decision for us and explain how you have come to so strongly disagree with the reasoning.
Not only does the constitution not address homosexual marriage, but it doesn't even address who can marry who in a heterosexual marriage. Not to say that it's private or anything. There is nothing linking marriage to privacy. If there were, how could you pass laws requiring the government to grant marriage licenses?
And please take another crack at a real discussion of the 50% +1 bar for a change to the state Constitution. What you just offered was pathetically simpleminded. I am open to being swayed by your position, but you're going to have to do a LOT better than this.
There's nothing pathetic about simple. The more complicated an explanation, the more easily loopholes can be found and abused. Sir, I don't care how open you are to being swayed. I am simply expressing an opinion. How you react to it is not my concern. When the court adds completely unrelated meaning to constitutional language, just so it can subject a population to laws not favored, I find that threatening to democracy. And I believe the homosexual community deserves to have this amendment added to the constitution, for resorting to those sorts of tactics. Is it wise to allow the constitution to be amended with a simple majority? I don't believe so, but the voters approved that system, too, so who am I to argue?
Also, I like this 2/3 tax hike voter approval idea. I wish we had that in the federal government. Why? If 50% +1 is all it takes to change a founding document, what would be the point of a 2/3rds vote on taxes? 50% +1 could vote a change in the Constitution to eliminate the 2/3rds bar, so what's the point? Do you have a cohesive position here? If so, you'd better elaborate and clarify, because your position looks silly right now.
Because it makes it that much more difficult to raise taxes. They would have to amend the constitution, and then go back and have another vote to raise taxes. Besides, I said I wish we had that tax-approval standard for the federal govornment. In the federal government, you need a lot more than 50% to amend the constitution. Unfortunately we hardly need anything to raise federal taxes.