Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[MCWAY]

State high court interested in Prop. 8 suits
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

(11-13) 18:17 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.

The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.

"I think it's fair to infer that the court is looking at these (cases) very carefully," Krueger said. Usually, he said, when plaintiffs ask the state's high court to take up their case directly without first filing in a lower court, the justices dismiss the suit without asking the other side for a reply.

Krueger declined to say whether Brown's office would ask the court to dismiss the suits without further review. He noted, however, that Bill Lockyer, the attorney general when gay-rights advocates first challenged the marriage law, invited the state Supreme Court to review the issue in 2006 even after an appellate court had upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

Although the court's request, issued Wednesday, did not mention any issues in the suits or state the justices' views, "it indicates that the Supreme Court sees the seriousness and immensity of the issue, and before it takes any action it wants to hear from Jerry Brown," said Irving Greines, an appellate lawyer in Los Angeles.

Greines filed papers Wednesday on behalf of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers supporting the legal challenges to Prop. 8 and urging the court to accept the suits for review. On Thursday, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute submitted a letter arguing that the court lacks authority to issue a stay that would suspend a voter-approved state constitutional amendment.

I just read this about 20 minutes ago.

It appears that Brown’s intention is that of a compromise (of sorts). And, ff the court follows his lead, Prop. 8 will stand but so will the estimated 18,000 gay “marriages” performed prior to Nov. 5.

My take is this: The argument of the plaintiffs is that Prop. 8 is a revision of the CA constitution and, as such, a simple majority vote cannot enact it. That has more of a chance of sticking, should Prop. 8 supporters insist that the 18,000 gay “marriages” be nullified.

However, if they let those remain but prevent future gay “marriages” from happening, the argument of allegedly taking rights away loses much, if not all, of its punch. Prop. 8 is simply an amendment, which ends the discussion of constitutionality.

[BayGBM]

 

[MCWAY]

That sign isn’t quite accurate. Remember that interracial marriage was allowed, as long as neither party was white. But, whether there was race-mixing or not, the construct remained one man and one woman.

It's a bit disingenuous for some gay activists to fume about intolerance and bigotry, while they're hurling racial slurs at black people (even black gays who protest Prop. .

As I've said in my thread, black gays will tell you that they experience PLENTY of intolerance, hate, bigotry, even among their supposed homo brethren. Prop. 8 has brought that to a head, now.

[Deicide]

MCWAY...I think you should dedicate your life to teaching the unenlightened the truth about the evils of homosexuality.

Then I hope one of your kids turns out gay so you can make his life miserable.

[Deicide]

James Dobson: Gay Marriage Our Greatest Threat!

October 27, 2008

"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation. But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."

Got that? Gutting the Constitution, breaking the military, crashing the economy, and making the world hate us, no biggie. But letting gays get married, that's the end of the world.

Prop 8 won't just stop gays from getting married in California, it'll nullify all existing gay marriages. Because nothing will preserve the sacred institution of marriage like suddenly dissolving a whole bunch of 'em.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/104822/james_dobson

[MCWAY]

MCWAY...I think you should dedicate your life to teaching the unenlightened the truth about the evils of homosexuality.

Then I hope one of your kids turns out gay so you can make his life miserable.

That would be like my saying I hope you dedicate your life to spreading atheism. Then, one of your kids grows up to be a minister.

[Deicide]

That would be like my saying I hope you dedicate your life to spreading atheism. Then, one of your kids grows up to be a minister.

It wouldn't happen and the analogy is a terrible one.

What would you do if one of your children came to you and told you he/she were gay? Would you get an exorcism performed of him/her?

[MCWAY]

It wouldn't happen and the analogy is a terrible one.

So, now you can guarantee that, should you have children, they will remain atheists like you?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. If her son can do that, your son/daugther can too (unless you've set yourself to remain unmarried and childless).

What would you do if one of your children came to you and told you he/she were gay? Would you get an exorcism performed of him/her?

Exorcisms are for demon-possesion, not homosexuality. What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.

[Deicide]

So, now you can guarantee that, should you have children, they will remain atheists like you?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. If her son can do that, your son/daugther can too (unless you've set yourself to remain unmarried and childless).


Exorcisms are for demon-possesion, not homosexuality. What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.

It's doubtful (if I have children, for which I am not required to be married anyway) my kids would be Christians. They wouldn't be raised in the US, most likely secular Europe or some Asian country.

So I guess you would be telling your daughter that her having a girlfriend is a sin; that's great but you can't actually prevent her from having a girlfriend now can you?

[MCWAY]

It's doubtful (if I have children, for which I am not required to be married anyway) my kids would be Christians. They wouldn't be raised in the US, most likely secular Europe or some Asian country.

It's doubtful that my kids would be atheists; but the possibility remains.

So I guess you would be telling your daughter that her having a girlfriend is a sin; that's great but you can't actually prevent her from having a girlfriend now can you?

No, I can't. In the same vein, should your children want to become Christians, you can't stop them from doing that, either.

[timfogarty]

What I would do is continue to love my child but make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in my home, just as any other sinful behavior isn't.

what does that mean?  that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?

if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out?  what if they became active in the gay rights movement?

if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit?  would you visit him/her in their home?   would you allow their partner to visit?  what about if they've been together for 10 years?  if they have children by adoption or other means?

[Deicide]

what does that mean?  that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?

if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out?  what if they became active in the gay rights movement?

if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit?  would you visit him/her in their home?   would you allow their partner to visit?  what about if they've been together for 10 years?  if they have children by adoption or other means?

All evil sinfulness...don't you get it?

[timfogarty]

All evil sinfulness...don't you get it?

so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.

[Deicide]

so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.

Exactly but if he crawls on his hands and knees begging for forgiveness as the wretch he is from the fictitious deity of the Christians he will be forgiven.

[MCWAY]

what does that mean?  that you're only homosexual the 10-20 minutes that you're having sex?

It means that loving my children does not require my acceptance of homosexuality.

if a child still living with you came to you and said he/she was gay, would you kick them out?  what if they became active in the gay rights movement?

if your child was living with someone in a loving committed relationship, would you allow you child to visit?  would you visit him/her in their home?   would you allow their partner to visit?  what about if they've been together for 10 years?  if they have children by adoption or other means?

Love does not override sinful behavior. My children know our stance (the "our" being me and my wife) on the issue of homosexuality. Furthermore, I have members of my family who are gay, who have been in our home and I in theirs.

So, you and Deicide can cease with your hypothetical mess, in your attempt to wish some kind of angst on me, with regards to gay family members.

so if your heterosexual child divorces and remarries, can't let them visit either.

Divorce is allowed in certain instances, the most infamous being ADULTERY. What part of that don't you get?

[BayGBM]

 

[BayGBM]

Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay'
(11-15) 17:59 PST LAS VEGAS, (AP) --

Comedian Wanda Sykes says the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in California has led to her be more outspoken about being gay.

"You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation. I didn't feel like I had to. I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life," Sykes told a crowd at a gay rights rally in Las Vegas on Saturday. "Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay. But that's the way people should be able to live their lives."

Sykes, who is known for her feisty and blunt style, said the passage of California's Proposition 8 made her feel like she was "attacked."

"Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."

Sykes' appearance at the Las Vegas rally was a surprise to organizers. She was in town performing at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.

[MCWAY]

An end to frivolous divorces? Sounds good to me!!! But what happens if your spouse cheats on you? Are you folks willing to stay with them, regardless?

Or, if such a law were to be passed, would you complain about that, too?

[Hereford]

Bay.

How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?

Serious question bro. 

[timfogarty]

How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?

the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

[Straw Man]

the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

and neither slaves or women had been granted said rights before having them voted them taken away

the prior CA Supreme Court decision will be the Achilles heel of prop 8

[DIVISION]

the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

Timothy, you're going to have to blockade the Mormons to overturn this legislation.
 
It may come down to the end of days for that happen.   




DIV

[MCWAY]

the majority wanted to keep slavery.  the majority didn't want women to vote.  the majority didn't want whites to marry blacks (in 1967!).  the majority wanted apartheid.

But constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

Not when constitutional guarantees afford the electorate the right to vote on certain issues.

[BayGBM]

Bay.

How do you feel about the fact gays feel their cause is more important than the will of the majority of people in the largest state in the country?

Serious question bro. 

The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.”  Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.”  That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. 

Jefferson understood very well that large numbers of people may easily be manipulated (for example by a slick talker, by advertisements, by religion, by dreams, by bigotry, by fear and other irrational impulses) into doing things, believing things, supporting actions, or passing laws that are hopelessly misguided.  Simply because a majority of people believe we should do X does not mean that X is necessarily the right thing to do. History is filled with examples of large numbers of people (even a majority) being manipulated into doing something stupid or illegal.  For example, the trauma of 9/11 and stoked fears of a mushroom cloud duped the USA into invading Iraq.  500 hundred billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, virtually every one now realizes that was a terrible mistake.   

The idea that citizens should be treated equally is inscribed into the Constitution.  Capricious public opinion—no matter how big the majority—cannot circumvent that.  The judiciary was specifically created to ensure this.  One of the great (and perhaps terrible) things about the principle of equality is that when legitimately applied, it will necessarily be applied to people who you may not want to have it.  Too bad; either everyone has it or no one has it. 

There have always been opponents of equality. When we look back in time at the people who opposed equal treatment under the law for various groups (blacks, women, Jews, the disabled, and on and on) we often ask ourselves, “who were those idiots and why were they so hopelessly ignorant?”  Look around you: those people are still here!

If you could place a sample of the opponents of gay marriage into a time machine and deposit them in into 1860 what side of the abolition of slavery do you think they would be on?  If you could deposit them into 1918 what side of women’s suffrage do you think they would be on? Legacy admissions (where if your parents or grandparents attended a school you would get favorable treatment when you applied) are still common at American universities.  Did you know that legacy admission policies were originally designed to keep Jews out of the best colleges?  If we take that time machine back to say 1900, the people who support Proposition 8 today would be the same people in favor of legacy admissions.  They want to reserve benefits for themselves that other people do not have access to.

Over the years, these opponents have used fear, religion, pseudo-science, legitimate science, racism, sexism, jingoism, and other filters to explain why “those people” should not be treated equally.  As I said, there have always been opponents of equality.  Even if those opponents constitute a majority, their will does not supersede the Constitution or the Justices that police it.

The Constitution was here long before you (and your filters) came along; and it will be here long after you (and your filters) are gone.

[MCWAY]

The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.”  Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.”  That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. 

Jefferson understood very well that large numbers of people may easily be manipulated (for example by a slick talker, by advertisements, by religion, by dreams, by bigotry, by fear and other irrational impulses) into doing things, believing things, supporting actions, or passing laws that are hopelessly misguided.  Simply because a majority of people believe we should do X does not mean that X is necessarily the right thing to do. History is filled with examples of large numbers of people (even a majority) being manipulated into doing something stupid or illegal.  For example, the trauma of 9/11 and stoked fears of a mushroom cloud duped the USA into invading Iraq.  500 hundred billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, virtually every one now realizes that was a terrible mistake.   

The idea that citizens should be treated equally is inscribed into the Constitution.  Capricious public opinion—no matter how big the majority—cannot circumvent that.  The judiciary was specifically created to ensure this.  One of the great (and perhaps terrible) things about the principle of equality is that when legitimately applied, it will necessarily be applied to people who you may not want to have it.  Too bad; either everyone has it or no one has it. 

There have always been opponents of equality. When we look back in time at the people who opposed equal treatment under the law for various groups (blacks, women, Jews, the disabled, and on and on) we often ask ourselves, “who were those idiots and why were they so hopelessly ignorant?”  Look around you: those people are still here!

If you could place a sample of the opponents of gay marriage into a time machine and deposit them in into 1860 what side of the abolition of slavery do you think they would be on?  If you could deposit them into 1918 what side of women’s suffrage do you think they would be on? Legacy admissions (where if your parents or grandparents attended a school you would get favorable treatment when you applied) are still common at American universities.  Did you know that legacy admission policies were originally designed to keep Jews out of the best colleges?  If we take that time machine back to say 1900, the people who support Proposition 8 today would be the same people in favor of legacy admissions.  They want to reserve benefits for themselves that other people do not have access to.

Over the years, these opponents have used fear, religion, pseudo-science, legitimate science, racism, sexism, jingoism, and other filters to explain why “those people” should not be treated equally.  As I said, there have always been opponents of equality.  Even if those opponents constitute a majority, their will does not supersede the Constitution or the Justices that police it.

The Constitution was here long before you (and your filters) came along; and it will be here long after you (and your filters) are gone.

As long as there’s no constitutional breach, the will of the majority takes precedence. And, with a legal precedent already set (“Baker v. Nelson”) saying that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union DOES NOT run afoul of the federal Constitution, marriage amendments are quite legal and lawful.

So, the task for gay activists would be to show that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union  violates the Constitution now, when it did not do so then.

Perhaps, a far greater task is showing the merits of gay “marriage” and winning the support of the populace. As it relates to California, that would be starting an amendment of their own, defining marriage as, say, “a union of two people”.

Whatever the case, vandalizing church property, trespassing during church services (i.e. some activists interrupting a church service in Michigan, screaming during their worship time and littering the sanctuary), and racial threats and insults aimed at blacks hardly helps the cause of gay “marriage” advocates.