Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a pr

[Dee]

The issue is complicated.  They are seeking to change the California Constitution to address the court ruling that found gay marriage to be a right.  If the amendment were passed the issue would be over until (not if) they revoke the amendment. 

The previously passed legislation was not an amendment, so it could not overcome being deemed unconstitutional...

Just a guess... IF it gets on the ballot it WILL NOT pass.  Gay marriage is here to stay in California. 

That is what the problem is both state wise and nationally. The JUDGES are creating legislation, and amending constitutions. That is NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to rule on existing laws, not make them. THE PEOPLE should be voting such amendments to State Constitutions. Government for the people and BY THE PEOPLE. Not for or by the judges.

[SHOOTALL]

it was abuse of power at one time .

[beemanbeme]

Oh No, Dukkiller! You make too much sense.  That's not playing fair.

[SHOOTALL]

Correct me if I'm wrong , the Consitution gives the states rights , it protects indivisual rights that already existed , it gives the federal govt. jurisdiction in certian areas . The govt. of a state or fed. govt unless given control by the Consitution has no jurisdiction as far as fed law.

[beemanbeme]

Shootall, I'm not a lawyer but I think it's the other way.  The constitution give the Feds certain, limited powers but retains most of the powers to the states. The Feds adjudicates problems between the states and regulates commerce between the states and represents the states to foreign governments. HOWEVER, since the Civil War, the Federal government has assumed more and more control both intra and inter state through direct intervention and manipulation. 
A simple example is the withholding of "federal highway funds" if a state doesn't comply with federal affirmative action quotas. If a local jurisdiction "thinks" a felon "might" have crossed state lines, the FBI is more than willing to charge in and take control of a investigation.  Or to "assist" a local jurisdiction like at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

[torpedoman]

maybe they will have to get divorced if it passes. I really think they should be allowed to share the joys of divorce with its great pleasures of property division, alimony, support payments, but it would be too confusing to the judge they would have too think instead of automatically siding with the female.

[SHOOTALL]

my point was we have rights and govt is given rights . or as of lately take rights .
both cases you mention were federal cases from the start with firearms violation . sawed off shot and auto weapons .
Being from Va. with all the battles we hosted from the war of northern aggression i am well aware of the states rights abuses !
My ? was who gave the govt. the right to even make a law with reguard to private ownership of hand guns ?

[Dee]

The government GAINED the right by decades of Americans NOT PAYING ATTENTION, and letting someone else run their business, while they went down and voted a straight party ticket, believing that this party or the other party was going to take care of their issues and needs.
Americans are still doing it, and now are wailing all the way to and from the polls. But their still doing it just the same.

[SHOOTALL]

YEP !
And the youngh were trained that way by parent and teacher !

[beemanbeme]

Well, Shootall, you answered your own question.  "We have met the enemy and he is us." 

[SHOOTALL]

 comfirmed would have been a better word