Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Supreme Court [MERGED]

[White Eagle]

Adding to the previous post, here is a link to the supreme response. It's got some good links in it.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/actio...rt_to_deliver_its_prop._8_verdict_on_tuesday/

Parties/Protests Planned: The California Supreme Court to Deliver Its Prop. 8 Verdict on Tuesday

Posted by dday, Hullabaloo at 8:10 AM on May 23, 2009.

Those battling for equality have devised new outlets for activism which have amped up the pressure for action at every level.

The California Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Tuesday morning at 10am PT on whether or not to throw out Prop. 8, a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. Brian Devine has the best legal description of this anywhere, which you can read here. The Court isn't really looking at the law itself, but whether a change of this type violates the limited ability of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative; in other words, whether Prop. 8 was an amendment, which is legal through the initiative process that was used, or a revision, which requires a more deliberative process.

 

[White Eagle]

Well, the Ca Supremes voted to keep the ban. But upheld the 18000 marriages performed before the ban. That doesn't make a bit of sense.
So, it looks like the pearls are gonna hit the fan!!!

 

[NickCole]

I'd have been surprised at any other decision.

As I pointed out last October and November when Obama supporters defended his cowardly refusal to urge his supporters at his rallys to stand with us in opposition to Prop 8, passage of Prop 8 will be more damaging than a simple single defeat.


California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008 presented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing. A number of justices who had voted in the majority in the 2008 case, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested in their questions from the bench that they were reluctant to overturn the will of the voters or to undercut the initiative process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?ref=us

 

[hotatlboi]

As I pointed out last October and November when Obama supporters defended his cowardly refusal to urge his supporters at his rallys to stand with us in opposition

Dude, seriously, Do you have to make EVERYTHING about Obama? This thread is about the CA supreme court interpreting CA state law. Nothing at all related to Obama.

It just gets old.

 

[NickCole]

Dude, seriously, Do you have to make EVERYTHING about Obama? This thread is about the CA supreme court interpreting CA state law. Nothing at all related to Obama.

It just gets old.

This absolutely is related to Obama. Obama said he "would fight efforts to prohibit [same sex] marriages" and that he's a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans,” and yet when he stood before thousands --maybe millions-- of supporters in the days and weeks leading up to the election, he never urged them to stand with us against Prop 8 as we were standing with him. That's particularly relevant with Obama because he had better than 95% support from blacks and they voted in huge numbers for Prop 8. He had an opportunity to make a difference and he didn't. And the fallout from that continues.

And btw our President, what he says and what he does and doesn't do regarding public policy, is relevant to most discussions in Current Events and Politics. Get used to it.

 

[CaptainRush]

I'd have been surprised at any other decision.

As I pointed out last October and November when Obama supporters defended his cowardly refusal to urge his supporters at his rallys to stand with us in opposition to Prop 8, passage of Prop 8 will be more damaging than a simple single defeat.

It was a risk he didn't want to take right before the election. I know I wouldn't have wanted to take that risk if I was in his shoes. He still may have felt torn though.

California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

This is much more of a kicker when it's in caps, lol. Oh man I can just see Maggie now praising.

 

[CaptainRush]

I didn't take into the shock factor that prop 8 let current marriages stand. That's exciting. Now I can see Maggie sighing "However, here at NOM we are disappointed about the 18,000 marriages..."

Grrr. I follow her too much.

Edit: Can you imagine? All these states start allowing same-sex marriage, a few years later vote at the polls to ban it. Then, the courts have their own ruling and look to CA's decision to keep the ones that were legal in the years it was signed by their governor as valid. Not saying this would happen for every state but if it did we would have thousands of same-sex marriages over the states, perhaps even close to 100,000.

Would be a good argument to have that there are already married couples all over the country.

 

[MystikWizard]

Dude, seriously, Do you have to make EVERYTHING about Obama? This thread is about the CA supreme court interpreting CA state law. Nothing at all related to Obama.

It just gets old.

If you find posters like that "getting old" and constantly making all their threads about a single topic like that (one could argue that Madonna does the same thing in making all his posts about a race-related topic), then my best advice is to go under "My Settings" and put them on Ignore.

The best thing you can do to posters like this is not given them the attention, they are looking for.



.....

Regarding the whole Prop 8 discussion, I honestly felt it could have went either way and am certainly not surprised by the ruling. The judges did their job and upheld the will of the voters, as Bear Daddy said. It doesn't make it the morally right thing to do, but by the book, they did their jobs.

You have to look at the voters who cast the votes to begin with during the election, as being the real problem.

 

[Apollo]

People people people, this is typical NickCole, just ignore it. He will make everything Obama related. It isn't worth replying to, let him have his Obama rant and discuss the real issue, which isn't even connected to Obama.

He thinks Obama is connected to everything, except for when his Goddess Hilary Clinton does something. Only then is he not responsible for it.

 

[MystikWizard]

People people people, this is typical NickCole, just ignore it. He will make everything Obama related. It isn't worth replying to, let him have his Obama rant and discuss the real issue, which isn't even connected to Obama.

He thinks Obama is connected to everything, except for when his Goddess Hilary Clinton does something. Only then is he not responsible for it.

Exactly.

My best advice is to physically go under your Settings and place troll posters like that on Ignore, however if not, then just don't reply to the person at all, and just let them essentially talk to the wall.

 

[CaptainRush]

The California Supreme Court did the right thing according to their job description.

Yeah, I whole heartedly agree. It's just an all 'round kick in the shin day for GLBT Americans.

 

[Spensed]

The California Supreme Court did the right thing according to their job description.

I completely disagree. What they did means that a simple majority can now constitutionally discriminate against any minority.

Obviously, the Federal Constitution and laws step in to mitigate those consequences, but I suspect in time the ruling will be seen as socially and political expedient and without any long standing legal merit.

It'll be the case that gets overturned, when the issue is one of race or religion or women's rights or physical handicap, etc., etc.

 

[Apollo]

I completely disagree. What they did means that a simple majority can now constitutionally discriminate against any minority.

Obviously, the Federal Constitution and laws step in to mitigate those consequences, but I suspect in time the ruling will be seen as socially and political expedient and without any long standing legal merit.

It'll be the case that gets overturned, when the issue is one of race or religion or women's rights or physical handicap, etc., etc.

They did do their jobs though. It stands on full legal merit as the voters of California voted for this bill. It wasn't a bunch of old rich white men sitting around passing a law. If the judges had overturned it, then they would have acted on what THEY believed was right, which isn't their job because it is following the rule of law.

I hate to say that though, because prop 8 is still wrong and it will eventually be overturned. But that is only going to happen until VOTERS vote to overturn it.

 

[Kulindahr]

This absolutely is related to Obama. Obama said he "would fight efforts to prohibit [same sex] marriages" and that he's a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans,” and yet when he stood before thousands --maybe millions-- of supporters in the days and weeks leading up to the election, he never urged them to stand with us against Prop 8 as we were standing with him. That's particularly relevant with Obama because he had better than 95% support from blacks and they voted in huge numbers for Prop 8. He had an opportunity to make a difference and he didn't. And the fallout from that continues.

And btw our President, what he says and what he does and doesn't do regarding public policy, is relevant to most discussions in Current Events and Politics. Get used to it.

So what you're saying is that you'd rather have gotten McCain for president.

Gotcha.

 

[Kulindahr]

The California Supreme Court did the right thing according to their job description.

That could be said no matter what their decision had been.

 

[Kulindahr]

I completely disagree. What they did means that a simple majority can now constitutionally discriminate against any minority.

That's a problem with processes to amend state constitutions in several states.

Obviously, the Federal Constitution and laws step in to mitigate those consequences, but I suspect in time the ruling will be seen as socially and political expedient and without any long standing legal merit.

Which looks like grounds for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court: is it legitimate for any state to deprive a minority of equal rights by a majority vote?
This would be time for a SCOTUS with courage to incorporate every bit of the Bill of Rights, and every non-enumerated right ever mentioned, and impose them on all the states.

It'll be the case that gets overturned, when the issue is one of race or religion or women's rights or physical handicap, etc., etc.

Either that, or we have a government of the people, by a few of the people, for just some of the people.

 

[Lostlover]

Dude, seriously, Do you have to make EVERYTHING about Obama? This thread is about the CA supreme court interpreting CA state law. Nothing at all related to Obama.

It just gets old.

Speaking of old, we know what demographic to thank for this nonsense in the first place. I don't like the idea of judges overturning voters, so we know who is to blame here.

 

[hotatlboi]

Speaking of old, we know what demographic to thank for this nonsense in the first place. I don't like the idea of judges overturning voters, so we know who is to blame here.

Yes, that is getting old too. Do you have to bring this up in every thread?

 

[Lostlover]

People people people, this is typical NickCole, just ignore it. He will make everything Obama related. It isn't worth replying to, let him have his Obama rant and discuss the real issue, which isn't even connected to Obama.

He thinks Obama is connected to everything, except for when his Goddess Hilary Clinton does something. Only then is he not responsible for it.

The irony is that some of the loudest bitchers in this thread are a part of the group that CONSISTENTLY shoots down gay marriage, old people.

They need to look in their own backyard before complaining. I hold them more responsible than judges and the president.

 

[hotatlboi]

I completely disagree. What they did means that a simple majority can now constitutionally discriminate against any minority.

Yes but, that's the way it already was. When you have 51% vote to amend constitutions, you can get those kind of mob rule scenarios. And as they mentioned in the oral arguments, this isn't the first time an amendment like that has been passed in CA.

If CA feels that this process is unfair, then they should change how they amend their constitution, but that wasn't the question before the court.