Proposition 8

[Eyeball Chambers]

I don't really care much one way or the other, but what's up with the courts getting into this Prop 8 BS?

The people have spoken.

Is gay marriage a civil right? 

[MCWAY]

I don't really care much one way or the other, but what's up with the courts getting into this Prop 8 BS?

The people have spoken.

Is gay marriage a civil right? 

After Prop. 8 passed, there was an immediate lawsuit filed. It's basically on a technicality. The suit claims that Prop. 8 has such far-reaching implication that it amounts to a constitutional revision, instead of a mere amendment. By CA rules, a revision must have a 67% supermajority of the Legistaure, as well as a simple majority of voters. Since the plaintiffs know that the current Legislature won't pass Prop. 8 by that margin, they are filing the suit.

From what I've heard on the news and on some websites, the judges have been beating on the plaintiffs' arguments quite thoroughly and, unless some home-run hitter for the plaintiffs saves the day, Prop. 8 will stand.


Calif. court appears likely to uphold Prop 8


SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The California Supreme Court appeared willing Thursday to allow Proposition 8 to stand, with key justices during oral arguments expressing skepticism at the legal reasoning made by attorneys urging the striking of the "gay marriage" ban.

At issue is an amendment to the state constitution passed by a majority of voters last fall defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Prop 8 overturned a 4-3 ruling six months earlier by the court legalizing "gay marriage." California became one of 30 states with such an amendment.

"From what I'm picking up from the oral arguments in this case is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people," Justice Joyce Kennard, who voted with the court's majority last year, told an attorney who was arguing against Prop 8. "… The people established the constitution. As judges, our power is very limited."

If Kennard and the three minority justices from last year vote to uphold Prop 8, then it will stand. But she may have company, as Chief Justice Ronald M. George and others also seemed critical of legal arguments put forth by Prop 8 opponents. Prop 8 opponents had an uphill battle with Kennard, who had voted not to even take the case.

If Prop 8 is upheld, the justices also must determine whether the thousands of "gay marriages" conducted prior to November remain valid. The court was less than clear which direction it would take there.......


http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30008

[Straw Man]

If they uphold Prop 8 it will be a fiasco for years to come

This means any right can be taken away by a poplular vote

It also means that same-sex marriage can be on the ballot every election cycle and it may win some years and then lose some years.

Also, it seems to me it makes the court irrelevent.

Maybe we should just scrap the court and put everything to a popular vote

[Soul Crusher]

If they uphold Prop 8 it will be a fiasco for years to come

This means any right can be taken away by a poplular vote

It also means that same-sex marriage can be on the ballot every election cycle and it may win some years and then lose some years.

Also, it seems to me it makes the court irrelevent.

Maybe we should just scrap the court and put everything to a popular vote

The people voted.  Tough. 

Gays did not have the "right to marriage" in the first place.  You cant take away something that never was there in the first place.

[Eyeball Chambers]

This means any right can be taken away by a poplular vote

Is gay marriage a "right"? 

[Straw Man]

The people voted.  Tough. 

Gays did not have the "right to marriage" in the first place.  You cant take away something that never was there in the first place.

Damn you're dense.

The CA Supreme Court decided last year that denying gays the right to marry violated the Equal Protection Clause of the  CA Constitution.  So yeah they did have the right which was subsequently taken away by the voters.

Another clue that they had the right to marry would be the 1000's of marriages that currently hang in limbo

[Dos Equis]

After Prop. 8 passed, there was an immediate lawsuit filed. It's basically on a technicality. The suit claims that Prop. 8 has such far-reaching implication that it amounts to a constitutional revision, instead of a mere amendment. By CA rules, a revision must have a 67% supermajority of the Legistaure, as well as a simple majority of voters. Since the plaintiffs know that the current Legislature won't pass Prop. 8 by that margin, they are filing the suit.

From what I've heard on the news and on some websites, the judges have been beating on the plaintiffs' arguments quite thoroughly and, unless some home-run hitter for the plaintiffs saves the day, Prop. 8 will stand.


Calif. court appears likely to uphold Prop 8


SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The California Supreme Court appeared willing Thursday to allow Proposition 8 to stand, with key justices during oral arguments expressing skepticism at the legal reasoning made by attorneys urging the striking of the "gay marriage" ban.

At issue is an amendment to the state constitution passed by a majority of voters last fall defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Prop 8 overturned a 4-3 ruling six months earlier by the court legalizing "gay marriage." California became one of 30 states with such an amendment.

"From what I'm picking up from the oral arguments in this case is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people," Justice Joyce Kennard, who voted with the court's majority last year, told an attorney who was arguing against Prop 8. "… The people established the constitution. As judges, our power is very limited."

If Kennard and the three minority justices from last year vote to uphold Prop 8, then it will stand. But she may have company, as Chief Justice Ronald M. George and others also seemed critical of legal arguments put forth by Prop 8 opponents. Prop 8 opponents had an uphill battle with Kennard, who had voted not to even take the case.

If Prop 8 is upheld, the justices also must determine whether the thousands of "gay marriages" conducted prior to November remain valid. The court was less than clear which direction it would take there.......


http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30008

I read a similar article the other day.  Still, I will be surprised if they actually do the right thing and respect the political process. 

[Dos Equis]

Damn you're dense.

lol . . . Pot, kettle.  lol. . . .  He's actually much smarter than you. 

[tonymctones]

Is gay marriage a "right"? 

thats exactly the point, straw you are wrong our rights cannot be taken away by popular vote.

Gay marriage is not a right

[tonymctones]

I actually expect them to overturn it...gay marriage will happen sooner or later which is why marriage should become strictly private and just give everyone civil unions.

[Dos Equis]

thats exactly the point, straw you are wrong our rights cannot be taken away by popular vote.

Actually they can.  Some rights require simple majority and some require super majority. 

[MCWAY]

If they uphold Prop 8 it will be a fiasco for years to come

This means any right can be taken away by a poplular vote

That argument has been refuted by the justices in the CA court. Justice Kennard, the tie-breaker judge (as I call her) in the May case reminded the plantiffs that the Supreme Court ruled that the “right to life” was why the Court ruled the death penalty “unconstitutional”. However, when the people amended the state constitution, legalizing capital punishment, the CA court dismissed a challenge to that amendment.

The rights of the people to change their own constitution don't get stripped away just because they disagree with the CA court or gay "marriage" advocates.

It also means that same-sex marriage can be on the ballot every election cycle and it may win some years and then lose some years.

Not really. It took two years for the Prop. 8 folks to put this on the ballot. Gay activists tend NOT to use the ballot to pass their re-definition of marriage.

Furthermore, if passing amendments is an issue, the CA folks can do what Floridians did in 2006. Though I voted against the measure, the rule now is that any state constitutional amendment must pass by a 60% supermajority (incidentally, Florida passed its marriage amendment 62-38).

Also, it seems to me it makes the court irrelevent.

Maybe we should just scrap the court and put everything to a popular vote

[MCWAY]

Actually they can.  Some rights require simple majority and some require super majority. 

And, that's the nature of this case. What formula is actually required to make Prop. 8 permanent? Is it:

A) 51% majority of electorate, or

B) 51% majority of electorate AND 67% majority of Legislature.

The plaintiffs claim it's "B" (only, of course, because the current Legislature would not support Prop. 8 by that margin).

[Straw Man]

You guys can still maintain your beliefs without being stupid.

Gay people had the right to get married which is why there were thousands of legal same sex marriages in the state of CA

That right was taken away by Prop 8

Those ARE the facts

The court will decide if Prop 8 will stand but that doesn't change the facts

[Dos Equis]

Not really. It took two years for the Prop. 8 folks to put this on the ballot. Gay activists tend NOT to use the ballot to pass their re-definition of marriage.

Tend not to?  Have they ever?  In the three states where it is allowed it was done by a handful of judges.  

They're trying to pass a civil unions bill here.  Passed the house, but didn't get out of committee in the senate.  Now senate democrats are considering pulling the bill from committee and sending it to the full senate, because they have the votes in the senate to pass it.  

We had massive protests at the state capitol.  Some estimated that 10,000 showed up in opposition to the bill.  The next day about 75 people showed in support of the bill.  The senate hearing lasted 18 hours and ended at about 0300.  Talk about a hot button issue.  

[Dos Equis]

And, that's the nature of this case. What formula is actually required to make Prop. 8 permanent? Is it:

A) 51% majority of electorate, or

B) 51% majority of electorate AND 67% majority of Legislature.

The plaintiffs claim it's "B" (only, of course, because the current Legislature would not support Prop. 8 by that margin).

That's how the process should work.  If Californians don't like it they should change the law. 

[MCWAY]

You guys can still maintain your beliefs without being stupid.

Gay people had the right to get married which is why there were thousands of legal same sex marriages in the state of CA

That right was taken away by Prop 8

Those ARE the facts

The court will decide if Prop 8 will stand but that doesn't change the facts

You don’t get it. The courts don’t assign rights; constitutions do. And those constitutions are ultimately decided BY THE PEOPLE!!! If the Supreme Court decided that conservatives have the right to have only a Republican president, that would mean the people who voted for Obama wouldn't matter. Their votes "violated" conservatives' rights, by your logic.

Lost in all of this is one simple thing. Gays NEVER LOST the 'right' to get married. You can't have the right to participate in something, without that something being defined. Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Everyone in CA can participate in that. The fact that gays don't want to do so, because of their "preference", that's their business.

You may choose not to get married for another reason altogether. That doesn't mean you CAN'T. If gays want to re-define marriage, it appears that (barring some drastic change by the CA court) they'll have to find another way to get it done.

[Straw Man]

You don’t get it. The courts don’t assign rights; constitutions do. And those constitutions are ultimately decided BY THE PEOPLE!!! If the Supreme Court decided that conservatives have the right to have only a Republican president, that would mean the people who voted for Obama wouldn't matter. Their votes "violated" conservatives' rights, by your logic.

Lost in all of this is one simple thing. Gays NEVER LOST the 'right' to get married. You can't have the right to participate in something, without that something being defined. Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Everyone in CA can participate in that. The fact that gays don't want to do so, because of their "preference", that's their business.

You may choose not to get married for another reason altogether. That doesn't mean you CAN'T. If gays want to re-define marriage, it appears that (barring some drastic change by the CA court) they'll have to find another way to get it done.

Before Prop 8 was there anything in the CA Constitution that granted heterosexual couples the right to marry

If not, then by your logic they don't have the right to get married either

[Straw Man]

You don’t get it. The courts don’t assign rights; constitutions do. And those constitutions are ultimately decided BY THE PEOPLE!!!

The Court didn't "grant" the right and I didn't write anything saying they did.  They essentially said the right always existed and had been previously denied:

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court struck down California's existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling.[37] The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22. After the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices

[Cap]

Being that homosexuality is still not seen as something that you are born as, but rather as a choice.  You are born with a sex, race, etc.  That is a given.  You can't "go black" or "go white" but we see many people "go gay".  That is why it is seen as a choice and should be seen as needing equal protection under the law.

[Purge_WTF]

  The treasonous government is undermining the vote of the people. Absolute bullshit if the ban gets overturned.

[MCWAY]

The Court didn't "grant" the right and I didn't write anything saying they did.  They essentially said the right always existed and had been previously denied:

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court struck down California's existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling.[37] The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22. After the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. Associate Justices

That same Chief justice George also said, most recently, "Maybe the solution has to be a political one … but the fact is there have been initiatives that have restricted and taken away rights of minorities put forth by majority vote," George told an attorney arguing that Prop 8 amounted to a revision. "Maybe that shouldn't be the case, but isn't that the system that we have to live with unless and until it's changed?"

Furthermore, citing the Perez v. Sharp doesn't quite apply. First, the interracial ban was one that specifically banned whites and non-whites. Perez was Mexican. But, under California law, certain Mexican descendants could call themselves "white". Because Perez called herself "white" and her husband was black, that became a problem. Had she said she was Mexican (that still would have been an interracial marriage), there would have been no issue.

[MCWAY]

Before Prop 8 was there anything in the CA Constitution that granted heterosexual couples the right to marry

If not, then by your logic they don't have the right to get married either

That makes absolutely no sense.

It is the term "marriage" that is being defined, Straw Man. By its very nature, it REQUIRES a man and a woman. This issue is about the definition of marriage, NOT who has the right to participate in the institution of marriage.

Marriage isn't simply defined as a union of just two people. It's one man and one woman. If gays want to change that definition, they must do so via other means.

If you have to right to smoke a cigarette and you wish to take a puff, you must smoke what is commonly defined as a cigarette. You can't wrapped someone in paper, call him a "cigarette", set him on fire, inhale the fumes from his burning body, and claim you're exercising your right to smoke a "cigarette".

[Straw Man]

That same Chief justice George also said, most recently, "Maybe the solution has to be a political one … but the fact is there have been initiatives that have restricted and taken away rights of minorities put forth by majority vote," George told an attorney arguing that Prop 8 amounted to a revision. "Maybe that shouldn't be the case, but isn't that the system that we have to live with unless and until it's changed?"

Furthermore, citing the Perez v. Sharp doesn't quite apply. First, the interracial ban was one that specifically banned whites and non-whites. Perez was Mexican. But, under California law, certain Mexican descendants could call themselves "white". Because Perez called herself "white" and her husband was black, that became a problem. Had she said she was Mexican (that still would have been an interracial marriage), there would have been no issue.

this is exactly what is happening

[MCWAY]

this is exactly what is happening

That's also why the courts don't assign who has rights and who doesn't. Ultimately, it's the people who define their constitution. And the state courts answer to the state constitution.

That state constitution now says that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, which makes that May ruling moot.

The only issue now is, per the CA Constitution, whether it takes a 51% majority electorate + 67% supermajority Legislature or just the 51% majority electorate.

Either way, the people get a say.