I'm rather upset beyond belief that Prop 8 passed in California - however I am quite interested in the ramifications of this. Consider - what historic precdent do we have for constitutional amendments being challenged in Supreme Courts? (none would be my answer) That's what we're going to be seeing quite soon.

People who don't read!

When I write an email asking if something is this or that, why would you reply back that, no, it is only that.

I didn't say this AND that. I said this OR that!

Don't forget the exclusive or. Which eludes me at the moment.

Rant: Props 1A and 2 passing, Prop 4 failing. Weak.

The entire purpose of the Federal supreme court is to review decisions made by the rest of the government, legislative, executive, or judicial, to ensure that their decisions are in line with the United States Constitution. The unfortunate thing is, they do slip up from time to time. They uphold decisions they should not, they view things as constitutional that they later decide was wrong. BrownVBoard is a very good example of that.

And amendments can, and have been, amended or repealed entirely. In Exemplar: The federal amendment prohibiting the sale or distribution of alcohol.

RE: 1A. Yes, because infrastructure shouldn't be supported and the poor can take Greyhound.

RE: 2. I tend to agree. If things were as bad as claimed I don't see why they couldn't have gotten something though the legislation.

RE: 4. Because obviously the Constitution should require those who can't communicate with their parents to do so by legal and police means.

RE: 4. If my daughter is legally ineligible to decide to get her teeth whitened, why in the name of god can she go have an abortion without my knowledge? They're minors. They're not capable of making good decisions, and parents deserve to know. The only reason it's an amendment is because it's been tried in the legislature and I believe it got overturned by the wonderful people that run the CA Supreme Court.

There's a lot of embarressment when you find out you're pregnant at a really young age, some girls really just don't want to be pregnant and do end up as such even after taking the precautions to not be. Birth control has a chance to fail, condoms have a chance to fail, etc. I know if I ended up pregnant in the next year or so, or when I was younger (thankfully I am old enough to make my own decisions) I would -never- have wanted to have to tell my mother. I couldn't stand her dissapointment.

Just a small comment on the other side, not really arguing!

This is true, but embarassment is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. If an individual is felt to be legally incapable of making major surgical decisions for other elective surgeries, why is abortion held sacrosanct? A 16 year old can't opt for any marjor surgeries, because she is felt to be legally incapable of making decisions. A nose job, a far safer and less intrusive procedure, requires endless forms and consents and stuff, all signed by the parents. Abortion, a procedure that is more likely to have complications and side effects, is judged "too embarassing" to require parental notification? Please, that's hogwash that has little to do with the law and a lot to do with the worship of the inalienable right for anyone to abort anytime anywhere.

Voters who can't keep religion out of their politics.

Arizona has had laws on the books, laws that, mind you, were NOT put to popular vote, banning gay marriage. In this election, one of the issues on the ballot was Proposition 102, a proposition to add a clause to the state constitution defining marriage as existing between one man and one woman. In a narrow election, simply because few people were aware of it, Proposition 102 was passed today.

What this means is that, short of another constitutional amendment at either the state or national level, there is now no way for any church in the state to marry two men or two women. Which means that we're thrown to the wolves as far as health care, benefits packages, housing, and adoption, just to name a few issues.

And 56% of the state decided that we can't have those things. Now or ever. And there is no non-religious justification for that kind of action, that kind of statement. The nation was founded on the principals of allowing other people to do their own thing in peace, provided their thing didn't interfere with other people doing their own thing. And trust me, the things we do only affect us. The only difference between us and them is in the bedroom and in our hearts. We are the same people, at least when we aren't being targeted by legislature that goes against the very spirit on which the nation was founded. We have the same goals in life, the same wants, the same needs. We just happen to fall in love with those of the same gender.

And apparently that's so morally repulsive that John Doe just can't stop being bothered by it long enough to go on about his business. Instead he spends all his time keeping his tighty-whities in a bunch, rendering him incapable of functioning in society. So instead of him dealing with his issues, instead he goes out and lobbies to make it harder for us to function in society, as if that would stop us from being gay.

So now I'm stuck perpetually single, legally. Unless I move, the amendment gets repealed, or a national constitutional amendment gets put in pplace making this one illegal.

This is true, but embarassment is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. If an individual is felt to be legally incapable of making major surgical decisions for other elective surgeries, why is abortion held sacrosanct? A 16 year old can't opt for any marjor surgeries, because she is felt to be legally incapable of making decisions. A nose job, a far safer and less intrusive procedure, requires endless forms and consents and stuff, all signed by the parents. Abortion, a procedure that is more likely to have complications and side effects, is judged "too embarassing" to require parental notification? Please, that's hogwash that has little to do with the law and a lot to do with the worship of the inalienable right for anyone to abort anytime anywhere.

Possibly because it's not just another surgery. It will have a physical and emotional impact on that person for the rest of their life, and also involves bringing an entire new person into the world. I'm not saying they shouldn't tell their parents, but saying this is just like another surgery is a fallacy, it's completely different.

And a lot of people older than 16 also can't make good decisions.

Also, when you are dealing with regular surgeries, you are either going to force the minor to have it or not have it. With an abortion, you're going to force them to have a baby or not have a baby. There's a difference.

If you have to give parental notification for something as minor as a nose job, why in the name of God should a parent not be informed about something as major as an abortion? It doesn't make any sense.

You made my argument in favor of parental notification far more effectively than I could.

Thanks cupcake ;-*

They should be informed, they shouldn't have to give consent.

Shiri is correct, Government and Religion have gone hand in hand for nearly as long as there's been some type of government. Alas, lucky for you now, there are at least alternatives. Ontario for sure allows Gay Marriage, plus certain European countries. While you may not have the correct papers in regards to your State, you can still be married.

They should be informed, they shouldn't have to give consent.

The initiative would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.