Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Supreme Court [MERGED]

[Lostlover]

Depends on what you mean by "constitutionally discriminate." I dont believe gay marriage is a constitutional right and if the CA Supreme Court believed it was they would have overturned Prop 8.

Are you over 50? If so, I can completely understand such an indifferent response, even if you're a gay man.

They must have really worked mind games on you in the 50s, 60s and 70s for you to continue to hate yourself in 2009.

When will this generational turnover happen?

 

[Lostlover]

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

Every thread that involves my rights being infringed on by this same group, yep.

 

[hotatlboi]

Every thread that involves my rights being infringed on by this same group, yep.

Your rights are also being infringed by millions of voters in the 18-30 group, and if it was not for people over 50, your rights would still be at nill.

 

[Lostlover]

Hey buddy. Yep, that's what happens when our rights as a minority are stepped on.

I tried refraining and I was. But to see some older posters come into that thread and blame Obama for the gay marriage failure when it's their age group that is the culprit.

I couldn't help but point it out. It was the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[naked gent]

Show me in the Ca constitution where gay marriage is protected. Otherwise you are just being foolish again.

Don't you mean young and foolish again?

 

[Lostlover]

Your rights are also being infringed by millions of voters in the 18-30 group, and if it was not for people over 50, your rights would still be at nill.

You should go look at the numbers on CNN. And Gallup. Most people 18-30 voted FOR gay marriage.

All it takes is a majority. And the majority of 18-30 year olds think you should have the same rights as heteros.

Get where I'm going?

 

[Lostlover]

It's called equal protection of the laws.

He has problems with numbers and doesn't vote/believe in his own interest. It's the result of growing up in an era where black people were lynched, gays were marginalized and women were barefoot and pregnant.

^^^ That's the answer to him and others shooting down peoples' rights.

 

[hotatlboi]

You should go look at the numbers on CNN. And Gallup. Most people 18-30 voted FOR gay marriage.

All it takes is a majority. And the majority of 18-30 year olds think you should have the same rights as heteros.

Get where I'm going?

Maybe you should go read my post again. I said:

"your rights are still being infringed by millions of voters in the 18-30 group"

and that is an entirely correct statement.

 

[hotatlboi]

and the ranks of 20somethings who are against gay marriage are too small to really matter.

Really?

Look at the margin of prop 8's passage in CA. Then look at the margin of 18-30 voters who supported it and how many people that is.

If all 20 year olds in CA had voted against it, it would have failed.

 

[Lostlover]

Maybe you should go read my post again. I said:

"your rights are still being infringed by millions of voters in the 18-30 group"

and that is an entirely correct statement.

No, no. You should go read that. A minority (as in a minority of 18-30 year olds) don't outnumber the majority (duh!).

If there was a vote today with just 18-30 year olds, we would be equal people under the law.

So with how voting works (just voting) a minority doesn't decide the outcome but a majority (as in over 50%).

We shouldn't play dumb.

 

[hotatlboi]

No, no. You should go read that. A minority (as in a minority of 18-30 year olds) don't outnumber the majority (duh!).

If there was a vote today with just 18-30 year olds, we would be equal people under the law.

So with how voting works (just voting) a minority doesn't decide the outcome but a majority (as in over 50%).

We shouldn't play dumb.

Read my last post for how your rights were infringed by 18-30 people in CA.

 

[construct]

It looks like since this ruling came down no one has mentioned the principle issue in this case. (Surprisingly, this even appies to Spensed . . . barely.) The issue was whether Prop 8 made a revision or an amendment to the California Constitution. If it were a revision, it would have to originate in the Assembly. If it was an amendment, it could originate from an initiative . . . as this one did.

More specifically, the issue was whether a restriction of equal protection was a revision. I believe the California Supreme Court was wrong in their holding on this issue, but they were still doing their job.

Does anybody really think that a restriction of equal protection is an amendment rather than a revision?

 

[NickCole]

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..."

Some of our CA friends were married during that window and I'm glad for them that their marriages will stand, but at the same time I can't help but notice a new sub-set has been created, gays who are married and gays who cannot marry. Hopefully not a big deal but, psychologically, division of haves and can't-haves is generally not good for a community.

 

[hotatlboi]

It looks like since this ruling came down no one has mentioned the principle issue in this case. (Surprisingly, this even appies to Spensed . . . barely.) The issue was whether Prop 8 made a revision or an amendment to the California Constitution. If it were a revision, it would have to originate in the Assembly. If it was an amendment, it could originate from an initiative . . . as this one did.

More specifically, the issue was whether a restriction of equal protection was a revision. I believe the California Supreme Court was wrong in their holding on this issue, but they were still doing their job.

Does anybody really think that a restriction of equal protection is an amendment rather than a revision?

As I understand it, their reasoning was that historically a revision was only something that changed the structure of the government (like how the assembly or governership or courts are organized etc), and since this wasn't that it didn't qualify. I also understand that their was precedent for a social issue like this to be an amendment. Do I agree with the principle of being able to restrict rights through constitutional amendments? Of course not. But as I understand it, this was more a technical definition of how the amendment affected the government rather than the people.

 

[NickCole]

It looks like since this ruling came down no one has mentioned the principle issue in this case. (Surprisingly, this even appies to Spensed . . . barely.) The issue was whether Prop 8 made a revision or an amendment to the California Constitution. If it were a revision, it would have to originate in the Assembly. If it was an amendment, it could originate from an initiative . . . as this one did.

More specifically, the issue was whether a restriction of equal protection was a revision. I believe the California Supreme Court was wrong in their holding on this issue, but they were still doing their job.

Does anybody really think that a restriction of equal protection is an amendment rather than a revision?

I might have this wrong but more specifically, from what I understand, they ruled that Prop 8 didn't substantively restrict equal protection because all it did was strip away gay's right to use the word "marriage."

All the rights of marriage remain available to gays in CA by way of civil unions. It seems to me a safe ruling that avoids overturning the will of voters while making an argument that, substantively, gay's rights are not restricted.

And this is one of the reasons I argued last fall that gays must do everything possible to defeat Prop 8 because once it passed the whole issue gets messier with "the will of the voters" complicating it. It's notable, for instance, that three or four of the judges who voted to uphold Prop 8 in the decision announced today had, last May, ruled that gays had the "right to marriage."

 

[construct]

I might have this wrong but more specifically, from what I understand, they ruled that Prop 8 didn't substantively restrict equal protection because all it did was strip away gay's right to use the word "marriage." All the rights of marriage remain available to gays in CA by way of civil unions.

Did this opinion overturn In re Marriage Cases? If not, why not?

And did this case overturn contrary precedent, or how did it explain their consistency?

 

[NickCole]

Did this opinion overturn In re Marriage Cases? If not, why not?

And did this case overturn contrary precedent, or how did it explain their consistency?

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[construct]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're asking.

I've since figured out In re Marriage Cases. In re Marriage Cases held that marriage is a right protected by the equal protection provision and thus a statute that restricted that right violated equal protection.

But the previous cases had concerned propositions claiming to be amendments that restricted rights. Some of those cases had held such propositions to actually be revisions. Although this precedent was inconsistent with later decisions, those decisions did not specifically overturn the earlier holding that such restrictions were revisions. This case also restricted a right--the right not to be placed in a second-class status by denying the right to the name "marriage." How were the earlier precedents not overturned?

Edit--to straighten out my confused syntax and misstatement about Marriage Cases.

 

[geoffmontgomery]

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.

I completely agree, they in no way shape or form did their job. Their job is to protect the public from idiot voters, just like the electoral college does. They must have heavy metal poisoning if they think this is the right decision.

 

[geoffmontgomery]

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.

Old people are deff. a problem, in every walk of life not just gay rights, but the biggest problem in this case was african-americans...not just in cali, but in florida as well.