Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Supreme Court [MERGED]

[hotatlboi]

Won't know until we try.

yeah but the status quo is better than a scotus ruling against gay marriage. slow progress is being made.

There's a reason hardly any gay rights cases have been brought in federal court so far, and this is it.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs must feel this case is too strong to lose. hope they are right.

 

[NickCole]

Update.

The case is moving to federal courts.

All the details are in this article on 365gay: http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-ruling-moves-to-federal-court/

It seeks to overturn proposition 8 on grounds of due process and equal protection in the US constitution. It's of note that the litigants are seeking a preliminary injunction against proposition 8.

And for us older folk who remember chads and Florida in 2000, it's also of note that the lawyers arguing for overturning Prop 8 in Federal court are the ones who argued Bush v Gore.

 

[CaptainRush]

I've got to learn how these courts work. I'm surprised it went to the federal court, I didn't know it would do that.

 

[NickCole]

Well, it was inevitable.

This might not end well.

I think this is a strong case but unfortunately the merits of the case matter absolutely zilch with bigots like Scalia on the bench.

I'm sure they'll win in the 9th circuit though, lol.

I agree.

And it's because of these kinds of cases that I maintain it's important Democrats use this opportunity to appoint a brilliant liberal/progressive justice with some kind of record on gay rights we can assess. This Supreme Court pick will be on the bench for a long time and nothing I can find in her history even hints about her position on gay rights or, specifically, same sex marriage.

Frankly, the Republican half-hearted objections to Sotomayor ought to be a warning signal to gays who want someone on the bench who'll at the very least be open to ruling in favor of things like same sex marriage, and better yet be a champion of gay rights.

OTOH, maybe I'm totally wrong and Obama chose her because she has no record on things like gay rights that Republicans can attack, and he secretly knows she supports true equal rights. I doubt it but I sure hope that's the case.

 

[hotatlboi]

I agree.

And it's because of these kinds of cases that I maintain it's important Democrats use this opportunity to appoint a brilliant liberal/progressive justice. This Supreme Court pick will be on the bench for a long time and nothing in her history even tells us her position on gay rights or, specifically, same sex marriage.

Sotomayor is an extreme supporter of minorities, if her decision on the Ricci case is any indication. I think it's unlikely she will be an enemy to gay rights.

 

[NickCole]

Sotomayor is an extreme supporter of minorities, if her decision on the Ricci case is any indication. I think it's unlikely she will be an enemy to gay rights.

First of all, affirmative action is not equal rights. And gays are fighting for equal rights.

And further, apparently you haven't noticed that, as minorities, blacks and gays do not always attract the same supporters. In fact many who are civil rights advocates for blacks do not support same sex marriage.

 

[hotatlboi]

Well, some gay groups are already calling this a premature action. I tend to agree.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grllk_nt63q2NPIotyM9xpL4hwkwD98EO6UG0

The lawyers said they know what they are doing. We'll see.

 

[naked gent]

yeah but the status quo is better than a scotus ruling against gay marriage. slow progress is being made.

I agree.....especially when states like Massachusetts have allowed gay marriage on the basis of equal protection.

I doubt a ruling by the SCOTUS denying gays the right to marry under the equal protection clause would have any effect in Massachusetts but I'm not really sure.

 

[hotatlboi]

I doubt a ruling by the SCOTUS denying gays the right to marry under the equal protection clause would have any effect in Massachusetts but I'm not really sure.

No, I don't think it would. The question would be, do states have the right to deny gays the right to marry and is that a violation of equal protection if they do so? If the court found that there was no equal protection violation with that state of affairs then it would essentially be saying that yes, they can, so really the effect would be the same as today but with discrimination now enjoying a protected legal authority. However if states have chosen to allow marriage, I don't think they would be effected by it.

The only way statutes/amendments allowing marriage could be eliminated is if that type was challenged (one allowing marriage rather than opposing it). That would be a more basic question of is gay marriage itself constitutional or something like that.

 

[construct]

No, I don't think it would. The question would be, do states have the right to deny gays the right to marry and is that a violation of equal protection if they do so? If the court found that there was no equal protection violation with that state of affairs then it would essentially be saying that yes, they can, so really the effect would be the same as today but with discrimination now enjoying a protected legal authority. However if states have chosen to allow marriage, I don't think they would be effected by it.

The only way statutes/amendments allowing marriage could be eliminated is if that type was challenged (one allowing marriage rather than opposing it). That would be a more basic question of is gay marriage itself constitutional or something like that.

Although your wording is a little clumsy IMHO, what you are saying is right. An unfavorable Sup. Ct. opinion would merely say that the parallel structure of civil unions or domestic partnerships on the state level does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment protections of due process and equal protection. That would leave everything as is with the sole exception that it would uphold the federal DOMA and close off court challenges to it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you claiming that all people prone to early death are intolerant? I'd love to see some evidence of that.

AH, if only it were so...

Though we'd see a lot of deaths among liberals, too, who are intolerant of things conservative.


Oh, well.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think intelligent education is wasted on an age group that is to die imminently anyway, and along with homophobic beliefs, however cruel that is it's reality. I think limited resources should be spent on the 30-60 age group. As it is I think the campaign to make gay marriage law in all 50 states would take at least 20 years, in that case people over 60 now would be greatly diminished by the most critical parts of the gay rights movement which is the slow process of repealing constitutional amendments.

Keep in mind that many people now live into their 80s, 90s, and even beyond.

That bolded line is a keeper! Still can't get over it.

The most tolerant group for gay marriage wasn't tolerant enough says the guy in the least tolerant group.


Just proof you'll say anything when you're down for the count.

LL, I know you don't understand math, but it's simple: for starters, the percentage of younger voters who got out and voted was low -- so if more younger voters had gotten off their asses, Prop 8 would have turned out differently. Second, there are enough younger voters who did vote that, if more had been more tolerant, what the older voters did (came out nearly even, if you look at the figures) wouldn't have been the slightly deciding factor it was.

So look to your own generation for failure: a great number aren't "tolerant", they're apathetic. And the fact that they're not more tolerant, and that there are still a lot who aren't tolerant, means that they aren't the deciding factor.

Instead of playing the blame game, labeling and condemning, get your generation motivated -- because staying at home is a way of voting, too, one that in this case says, "I don't give a shit about gay rights".

Add up the numbers, and you'll see that on Prop 8, a majority of your age didn't support gay rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

THis reminds me of the Heller case:

the NRA said...

This might not end well.

And the GOA responded....

Won't know until we try.

Given the two attorneys who filed the appeal, I hold out hope that things will go as they did for the GOA.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've got to learn how these courts work. I'm surprised it went to the federal court, I didn't know it would do that.

You can actually learn a lot by reading John Grisham novels.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, some gay groups are already calling this a premature action. I tend to agree.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grllk_nt63q2NPIotyM9xpL4hwkwD98EO6UG0

The lawyers said they know what they are doing. We'll see.

I wish they'd invoked freedom of association, too. That's one of those rights that's included in the Constitution by not being enumerated, and it has a serious bearing on this.

 

[Kulindahr]

O I forgot you were such a hater lover.

Huh???

 

[construct]

I've got to learn how these courts work. I'm surprised it went to the federal court, I didn't know it would do that.

No. The California case that was just decided is not moving the the federal court. A whole new case is being filed in federal court because the plaintiff there wants to raise a federal question.

 

[construct]

Right. You can't argue state constitutional law in federal court.

Well, yeah, you can, but it would have to be in a diversity suit. That's a whole different issue that I think it's probably better to postpone. It isn't really related to any of the gay marriage cases.

 

[construct]

Re: Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Supreme Court [MER

It's hard to word what I meant correctly. You can argue for and against the merits in a state constitution in federal court based on federal law or federal constitutional law, but you can't hold the state constitution to apply over federal law or federal constitutional law.

Sure, but those are questions raised under federal law and the supremacy clause. There are situations where a federal court can base its opinion solely on state law, i.e. in diversity suits.

 

[Kulindahr]

Tell more about that.

The NRA didn't want Heller to go ahead with his suit, because Wayne LaPierre and his legal team were dubious about winning -- they thought it could turn out badly.

The GOA said, "We fight for it because it's right". Heller went with that, and the result was that SCOTUS ruled in Heller's favor.
Of course that victory came about in part due to a brilliant brief filed by the Pink Pistols, along with many others, and because half of Congress weighed in urging the Court to recognize the plain meaning of the Second Amendment in its reference to "the people".* I suspect that with the Prop 8 case, there will be at least as much support and brilliant argument provided.


So...

some are saying that taking Prop 8 to SCOTUS could turn out badly. Others are saying fight for it because it's right (I tend to agree). My hope is that it goes as it did for the GOA, and that we win in spite of the doubters.










* concerning which...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]