Civil Rights should never be on a ballot for Popular Vote!

[DearAbby]

This is not right, it could happen to anyone. Who would be next? Women? minorities? If they can take away rights on a popular vote, no one's rights are safe.

[Justitia]

1. Amen to that! How do we fix this??? I also don't think it should be left to the states - at all.

[DearAbby]

2. Left to indiviual states isnt right either.

Isn't this a violation of the Equal protection clause in the constitution? I know I asked this earlier today in another thread. This has to be unconstitutional.

[Justitia]

3. To me, Civil Rights should always be Federal. This is unique because "marriage" is regulated by

states - although, yes, you would think Equal Protection would cover it.

I'm sure legal eagles have turned it over and over, but I think this will only be successful from the top down.

If we had left all our other Civil Rights to the States.....can you imagine?

[LynneSin]

4. especially an off year election where you can expect about 30% voter turn out

which means about 15% of the that state is deciding what is best for everyone else.

[DearAbby]

5. True, a small % of people decided.

How would these people who voted for this feel if it were their rights being placed on a ballot for popular vote? This is so wrong.

[DearAbby]

6. The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority

even if that minority is ONE. Is there a Constitutional Scholar on DU that could shed some light on this? And why hasn't this argument been presented?

[Libertas1776]

9. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights

DO protect the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, A-hole citizens and lawmakers have been "interpreting" these documents to fit their bigoted agendas for centuries, from justifying slavery to denying woman and blacks the right to vote. Now marriage equality is their new hot button to attack and derail. Some things never change, sadly.

[kelly1mm]

11. Not a constitutional scholar but I believe the problem is that

the Federal Courts have not found that sexual orientation is a protected class as that legal term is used in the 14th amendment's equal protection clause jurisprudence ..... yet. I actually think a "full faith and credit" clause case may be easier to win. Time will tell.

[shraby]

7. Aren't two high profile lawyers bringing it before the

supreme court? Seems I read that.

[DearAbby]

17. If it ever went to the Supreme Court

I am worried it would never pass with the Puritans we have sitting.

[donheld]

8. Exactly right

[EFerrari]

10. No kidding.

:grr:

[robinlynne]

12. This is so true.

[NMMNG]

13. Indeed

But what about people's "deeply held religious beliefs" and "tradition" and all that? Why shouldn't gay people have to run around begging everyone in America for the rights others take for granted? That's how it's always been done, right? :sarcasm:

[Starry Messenger]

14. This is correct.

No one's rights are safe.

[Beregond2]

15. Exactly.

The whole strategy of the gay rights movement is wrong=headed. They are accomplishing nothing except to create a well-orgnaized opposition. Does anyone seriously believe that the Jim Crow laws in the south would ever have been repealed had it been up to them? The race wars were won in the courts. Fundamental rights must NEVER be put to a vote. They are a question of constitutional law.

[dmr]

16. Marriage for all or none at all!

All legal-aged, single people should be free to marry.

It shouldn't be a straight or a gay issue - it should be made a marriage issue.

Too bad the referendums can't be 'do you believe all legal-age, single people be free to marry?'

This is a sad & shameful day.