T Nation

CA SC to Hear Prop 8 Arguments


#1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BAJC147QAJ.DTL&tsp=1


#2

Seriously, nothing? I expected at least a page and a half about this.


#3

It’s mostly a wait and see. There are some referendum technicalities to sort out, but smart money is that on a complicated issue, the justices finding any way they can to subvert political will on this.


#4

Yeah, I was a little disappointed to hear that the arguments were put off until March. Will be really interesting to see what happens.

A lot of heads will explode if the Court says Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it was a revision.


#5

The court legislating from the bench? Never! They would never trump the will of the people, would they?


#6

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Yeah, I was a little disappointed to hear that the arguments were put off until March. Will be really interesting to see what happens.

A lot of heads will explode if the Court says Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it was a revision.[/quote]

I think the waiting may actually be a good thing with the tension of the gay/lesbian activist in america right now, a decision either way at this point could cause a lot of animosity and turmoil.


#7

[quote]pat wrote:
The court legislating from the bench? Never! They would never trump the will of the people, would they?[/quote]

I’m not sure if you understand what’s going on. It’s not that the court is going to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage at this point.

They are going to hear arguments as to whether the procedures contained in the California State Constitution concerning changes to that document were followed, i.e., if this amounted to a revision it needed to be passed by a 2/3 majority of the legislature. If it was an amendment, then the legislature did not have to approve of it prior to the people getting to vote.

Assuming (and this can be a big assumption, depending on your outlook on judges) that they will review this from a neutral standpoint and without personal bias, they are not legislating from the bench. They are interpreting whether the Constitution was followed, which is exactly what the judiciary is meant to do.


#8

If the Supreme Court does rule that Proposition 8 required approval by the legislature as a constitutional revision, I can already hear the uproar from anti-gays about legislating from the bench.

Of course, my criticism of the passing of Prop 8 is portrayed as “whining”. Yet another example of them applying a double standard.


#9

[quote]forlife wrote:
If the Supreme Court does rule that Proposition 8 required approval by the legislature as a constitutional revision, I can already hear the uproar from anti-gays about legislating from the bench.

Of course, my criticism of the passing of Prop 8 is portrayed as “whining”. Yet another example of them applying a double standard.[/quote]

And nobody would guess that you’d have a vested interest in it’s outcome since your too cheap to by a plane ticket and go to Massachusetts.


#10

[quote]pat wrote:
And nobody would guess that you’d have a vested interest in it’s outcome since your too cheap to by a plane ticket and go to Massachusetts. [/quote]

Flying to Massachusetts wouldn’t do anything for me and my partner. Even if we lived in Massachusetts, we wouldn’t have any of the federal rights of marriage.


#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#12

Maybe it’s an issue he feels strongly about, that affects him personally. Maybe you’d do the same thing if someone told you that you couldn’t marry the wanted to.


#13

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Maybe it’s an issue he feels strongly about, that affects him personally. Maybe you’d do the same thing if someone told you that you couldn’t marry the wanted to.

[/quote]

To use your own words, he lost, he should get over it. It was put to public vote in many states and lost in all of them, big time. Only where the judicial branch chose to legislate from the bench, is it accessible.

It’s really pretty much a dead horse, and he keeps beating it.


#14

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Maybe it’s an issue he feels strongly about, that affects him personally. Maybe you’d do the same thing if someone told you that you couldn’t marry the wanted to.
[/quote]

You’re right, it is something I care about because I have a partner, and the laws against gay marriage directly affect us and our children.

What I don’t understand is why Mick posts so much about gays. He has started numerous threads about us, and is constantly saying how perverse homosexuality is.

In all sincerity, I wonder if he is a closeted gay himself. The research shows that people who are most vocally against gays are more likely to be fighting an internal struggle against their sexual orientation. Not all of course, but the likelihood is higher.

Regardless, I don’t mind since it gives me a forum for sharing how I feel.


#15

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#16

I voted against prop 8 and I was sorry to see it pass. But it did pass and the argument against its constitutionality seems pretty weak.

Regardless, this ban wont last. You can rest assured initiatives reversing prop 8 will be on ballots in the future and eventually one will pass. It’s just a matter of time. The problem with pushing for a court ruled decision on the basis of an equal protection clause is that the “category” of homosexual is arbitrary – it didn’t even exist prior to the late 19th century – and I don’t think arguments making claims of discrimination regarding the right to marriage, despite the court’s previous ruling, really hold up. It’s just a matter that ought to be left up to voters, and I think homosexuals would be better served by not telling a majority of people that they are ignorant bigots as they push for homosexual marriage.


#17

that’s right damnit, if they can’t cram it down our throats they are gonna slip it in through the back door.

Question: I hear homosexuals talking about their children a lot. How the hell do they have kids?


#18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
that’s right damnit, if they can’t cram it down our throats they are gonna slip it in through the back door.

Question: I hear homosexuals talking about their children a lot. How the hell do they have kids?[/quote]

Adoptions, previous marriages, etc…


#20

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Let’s tear down every major institution that we have in order to accommodate them…Ha ha[/quote]

We did it for interracial couples and for females who wanted to work and be public officials and for the retarded who wanted to not be considered insane and for… etc… etc…