Question re CA prop 8. CA constitution recognizes “inalienable rights” so how can that

[jody]

constitution be amended by a simple majority of voters to take away an inalienable right?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at
a general election the question whether to call a convention to
revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question,
within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention.
Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from
districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

[slackmaster]

1. The same way California can incarcerate people or have a death penalty

When liberty and life are among of those "inalienable" rights.

Even inalienable rights can be curtailed through due process of law.

I will be voting No on Proposition 8, BTW.

[jody]

2. I understand re "curtailed through due process of law" but "eliminated" as would happen if Prop 8

passes?

"Curtailed" means a limitation on an "inalienable right". Isn't that different from "eliminated"?

[slackmaster]

3. The right of gay couples to marry would not be eliminated in my view

It would be infringed.

:hide:

[jody]

4. I thought 8 prohibited using the word "marriage" but did not "take away any rights or benefits of

gay or lesbian domestic partnerships"?

My source is California Proposition 8 (2008)

Prop 8 must be very confusing to many voters including the idea of voting "yes" means voting "no".

[slackmaster]

5. At the moment, same-sex couples can apply for and get California marriage licenses

The law that is presently on the books that says they can't do that, was declared unconstitutional. Proposition 8 seeks to override that court decision by changing the state constitution, which would in effect "take away" their right to get that piece of paper.

What a California marriage license issued to same-sex couples means in other states right now is largely an open question. I assume MA and HI would honor it, but some states would not.

The issue really needs to be decided at the federal level IMO.

[jody]

6. Thanks. n/t