Prop 8 unconstitutional in Cali

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ca-gay-marr ... 42895.html

That's not news, we knew it was unconstitutional the day it passed.

There will be an appeal, of course. The Supreme Court will likely make the final decision in a year or two ... after the elections.

Still, in the meantime - - HOO! HOO!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am going to fascinated to see how the Supremes deal with same-sex marriage, generally.

The "full faith and credit" argument is on its way. Federal tax returns filed by couples in "Boston Marriages" (q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage ) have provided an opportunity for a federal case to strike down DOMA. If you are looking into the crystal ball, it's a pretty safe bet that recognition of same sex marriages will be compelled in the federal jurisdiction and in all fifty states and the District of Columbia within a decade.

So what's a conservative judge on the the Supreme Court to do in the meantime? Not all conservatives are cut from the same cloth, and while social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and lgal conservatives might find common cause on some issues, I am not certain that same-sex marriage is one of those issues. I suspect that presented with the issue in the case at bar, a majority of the Supreme Court will uphold the Court of Appeal's decision, on the basis that there is absolutely no value in entering into constitutional gymnastics to back a horse that won't run.

I heard the term "Boston marriage" on the Simpsons, but didn't know what it meant. Not nearly as self-explanatory as "front lumps".

I predict that Scalia will be the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court.

That's okay - Scalia's a raging idiot.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The voters spoke. I think the California Court is unconstitutional. And Scalia isn't nearly the disaster that Ginsburg is.

The voters have no right to deny civil liberties to other citizens. Otherwise, blacks still wouldn't be allowed to vote, and interracial marriage would still be illegal in many states.
The court ruling is in fact constitutional because the founding fathers had counted the judiciary along with the executive branch, and the legislative in the separation of powers. The court can make plenty of lousy rulings - the Dredd Scott decision, corporations are people - but still, their rulings can not be just dismissed out of hand (even though I often wish I could).
And another thing about the voters in California - the founders had feared the tyranny of the the majority, and so devised a system of government that protects unpopular minorities against the will of the many.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The voters can't deny someone any ones rights just because they want to. Aren't you a soldier, sworn to uphold peoples rights?

It is the job of the courts to uphold people's rights. Or at least they teach you that in law school. It is the job of the soldier to defend his or her country by cleaning up the various messes caused by the mistakes of politicians on both sides of the aisle. Questions?

don't forget about his mini-me, clarence thomas.

How can I ever forget mini- - - er, Clarance?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I dissent. You are arguing a falacy. Marriage is a privilege - not a right. Go to law school and you'll learn that. Rights are specified by the constitution. Marriage is not mentioned there thus it is a privilege - not a right. Secondly, the US is a republic, not a democracy. When a plebesite is carried out, it is legal and thus binding. Legislating from the bench IS NOT a right the courts have. That is the purvue of the legislature and, in referenda, the people - in which the majority rule. That minority crap is a liberal oxymoron. Third, you are forgetting the first amendment which clearly states that while no state religion shall be established, government will not interfere with religion either. By establishing same-sex marriage, the government is interfering with religion as marriage is a religious institution and it is dictating to the various religions that they must go against their beliefs. Government is dictating people what they can and cannot believe and it is in violation of the conscience clause of the constitution.

In sum, your argument is irrelevent and has no validity.

Marriage is only legal when the state issues the marriage certificate, so it's an institution controlled by the state - you should know that as a married man. As my pastor explained to my wife and I, when you get down to it, the clergyman performing the wedding is only just a witness in the eyes of the law. The real marriage is the certificate issued by the state. And the notion that gay marriage will step on freedom of religion actually holds no such terrors, as in New York, provisions had been made for their gay marriage bill, in which it was made clear that no religious institution will have to marry same sex couples if they don't want to. So, no threat to religion.
And I concede, I have never in my life gone to law school, so I admit I'm probably rusty on all the plebiscite stuff, but that doesn't negate the fact that civil rights "should never" be left to a popular vote, as there is too much a chance a minority will have their rights denied them.
And the fact of the matter is, the founders never lost sight of how the rights of the minority could be lost to the "tyranny of the majority." That is a fact.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Irrelevent. Just like being a licensed professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) is a privilege, so is marriage. Show me a law where marriage is specifically defined as a civil right. Your ignoring my argument, and according to 3 of my professors, correct argument of right vs. privilege will not get you out of this one. Marriage is NOT a civil right. To be a civil right, it must be specifically defined as such in the federal and state constitutions - which it is NOT. It is a privilege and yes, privileges can be denied by the majority of voters. That IS law. The only tyrrany I see are the minority liberals (especially activist judges) trying to shove their values down the rest of our throats. It won't happen. We won't let it happen. And if you far left-wingers expect to continue to hold any seats in government at all, you better start remembering that moderates don't like things shoved down their throats either! Obama is now beginning to find that out the hard way. Without moderates, far-left liberals lose power and they're finding that out the hard way.

And yes, there are clauses in ALL of the gay-marriage laws and bills for laws that are distinct and pointed threats to the First Amendment because even though, for example, the New York law states that religions may "opt out" of actual marring of such persons, they are still forced to "recognize" such unions under the law once the unions are made official. There is already case law on that. Again, you have not effectively argued your case.