9th Circuit Declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[larrymcg421]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling that Prop 8 was in violation of the 14th Amendment. Here is the text of the decision:

Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/80809524/Ninth-Circuit-Prop-8-decision)

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in CA."


Definitely a great day for equality.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Definitely a great day for equality.

And a sad day for both decency & the rights of the voters.

edit: And now it's on to the Supremes, where this was going either way.

[Rizon]

I'm surprised it only took Jon 3 minutes to respond.

http://i.imgur.com/Lb8Os.gif

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm surprised it only took Jon 3 minutes to respond.


Random act of timing, if I hadn't seen it when I probably wouldn't have seen it for several hours (about to be AFK).

More of a {shrug} than you'd probably suspect though, I don't get particularly high or low on lower court rulings when an appeal seems likely.

[Kodos]

My sister-in-law is gonna be pissed!

[Chief Rum]

Decency? Must be tough not liking "them gays".

I'll reiterate my stance that we need to separate religious marriage from legal marriage. Religions have the right to determine what marriages they see as legitimate. But everyone should have the right to enter into a legal partnership to spend their lives with a loved one, a natural progression in the human condition.

That is why I support the concept of civil unions.

[Chief Rum]

Agreed that this is definitely headed to the Supreme Court.

[Rizon]

I'll reiterate my stance that we need to separate religious marriage from legal marriage.

Agreed that this is definitely headed to the Supreme Court.

Long overdue.

[larrymcg421]

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS will rule that appellants don't have standing so they can avoid ruling on the heated central issue, just like they did with the pledge ruling a few years back.

[ISiddiqui]

Hooray!! As I agreed with Judge Walker's decision entirely, I am glad the 9th Circuit affirmed it.

[JPhillips]

Religions won't be forced to marry anyone. The state will have to treat gay marriage equally.

[Crapshoot]

Decency? Must be tough not liking "them gays".

I'll reiterate my stance that we need to separate religious marriage from legal marriage. Religions have the right to determine what marriages they see as legitimate. But everyone should have the right to enter into a legal partnership to spend their lives with a loved one, a natural progression in the human condition.

That is why I support the concept of civil unions.

Exactly. You're free towards your marriage, and your church can recognize what it chooses to; but your church should not determine that of others.

Fundementally, I'm convinced gay marriage is a conservative belief - the idea and faith in the institution of marriage being extended out to gay people. Why is that a bad thing?

[Crapshoot]

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS will rule that appellants don't have standing so they can avoid ruling on the heated central issue, just like they did with the pledge ruling a few years back.

Its the easy way out, no? I don;'t think they want to rule on gay marriage before the 2012 elections.

[larrymcg421]

Decency? Must be tough not liking "them gays".

I'll reiterate my stance that we need to separate religious marriage from legal marriage. Religions have the right to determine what marriages they see as legitimate. But everyone should have the right to enter into a legal partnership to spend their lives with a loved one, a natural progression in the human condition.

That is why I support the concept of civil unions.

I'm fine with civil unions if there's no marriage for anybody, but I don't think that's a realistic path. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't force churches to do anything. however, banning gay marriage discriminates against churches that do perform gay marriage ceremonies. As long as marriage is recognized by the government, it is unconstitutional to arbitrarily deny it to a group of people without a compelling interest.

[sterlingice]

It's still easiest just to have the government recognize "civil unions" as a status with a basic set of laws, tax code, guidelines, etc and if something fits that definition, they are a civil union. Government should be out of marriage

SI

[albionmoonlight]

I agree that SCOTUS would rather not reach the merits. I wonder if it might just deny cert.

If the Court does reach the merits, I think that it upholds the decision 5-4 with Kennedy writing the majority opinion joined by the four liberals.

[larrymcg421]

It's still easiest just to have the government recognize "civil unions" as a status with a basic set of laws, tax code, guidelines, etc and if something fits that definition, they are a civil union. Government should be out of marriage

SI

That's complicated because the Loving v. Virginia decision that overruled bans on interracial marriage declared marriage as a fundamental human right.

[JediKooter]

It is nice to see that common sense rules when it should. Yes, the majority of the voters voted for this. However, the majority was wrong. That is why we have our constitution and our system of checks and balances. This is basic US Government 101 people. If you don't get it, go back to school.

[JPhillips]

It's still easiest just to have the government recognize "civil unions" as a status with a basic set of laws, tax code, guidelines, etc and if something fits that definition, they are a civil union. Government should be out of marriage

SI

In theory maybe, but the same people against gay marriage would never tolerate the name change. Discrimination is the point for most of these people.

[BillJasper]

Decency? Must be tough not liking "them gays".

I'll reiterate my stance that we need to separate religious marriage from legal marriage. Religions have the right to determine what marriages they see as legitimate. But everyone should have the right to enter into a legal partnership to spend their lives with a loved one, a natural progression in the human condition.

That is why I support the concept of civil unions.

+1

[Toddzilla]

It must really suck to be so very attached to the white, heterosexual, christian, patriarchal society that is disappearing before our very eyes.

[cody8200]

It is nice to see that common sense rules when it should. Yes, the majority of the voters voted for this. However, the majority was wrong. That is why we have our constitution and our system of checks and balances. This is basic US Government 101 people. If you don't get it, go back to school.

Actually California needs to get out of the "citizen" initiated propositions entirely. They have almost single-handedly destroyed the state's economy.
Proposition 13: War by initiative | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18548109)

[lcjjdnh]

I agree that SCOTUS would rather not reach the merits. I wonder if it might just deny cert.

If the Court does reach the merits, I think that it upholds the decision 5-4 with Kennedy writing the majority opinion joined by the four liberals.

Possible en banc in Ninth Circuit first?

[cartman]

Possible en banc in Ninth Circuit first?

With the reputation the 9th Circuit has, I think in the interests of expediency they would go straight to the Supremes, rather than wait to see if the entire panel would hear the case and decide any differently.

[BillJasper]

Actually California needs to get out of the "citizen" initiated propositions entirely. They have almost single-handedly destroyed the state's economy.
Proposition 13: War by initiative | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18548109)

Good article.

[JediKooter]

Actually California needs to get out of the "citizen" initiated propositions entirely. They have almost single-handedly destroyed the state's economy.
Proposition 13: War by initiative | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18548109)

Wow, now that's a blast from the past. :)

I don't think it should be eliminated, but, I think it needs a serious overhaul. One, it needs to be much much more difficult to get a measurement on a ballot and the second one needs to be, full disclosure of where the money is coming from.

[cartman]

Yep. Anytime you can pass a spending measure without funding it by a simple majority, but require a super-majority to raise taxes, that doesn't bode well.

[molson]

full disclosure of where the money is coming from.

That would be nice but with Citizens United I think you can just setup a corporation (or non-profit organization) to funnel the money and disguise your individual identity.

[Grover]

This is fantastic news. A victory for common sense and decency.

[cody8200]

Good article.

That entire issue of The Economist was all about California. There were maybe 10-20 articles in total - some with good things to say about the state, some bad - but all of them insightful.

[lcjjdnh]

With the reputation the 9th Circuit has, I think in the interests of expediency they would go straight to the Supremes, rather than wait to see if the entire panel would hear the case and decide any differently.

Despite the Ninth Circuit's reputation, it has some pretty heavy-hitting conservatives on the bench--see, e.g., Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Bybee. En banc in the Ninth Circuit draws 11 judges at random--not the full panel--so might get lucky (which the supporters of Prop 8 certainly didn't get on their first go-around, drawing Stephen Reinhardt).

[Matthean]

The problem with the Christian Right and other groups is that they want to make legislation based on something only they believe in. That's great that it works for them, but how about the rest? It's like trying to get a Bears fan to wear a cheesehead. I even say this as a Christian. It's interesting reading a book about Chrisitanity and the government and the author even admits if someone is a Christian politician they are either really good at one or the other.

[JediKooter]

That would be nice but with Citizens United I think you can just setup a corporation (or non-profit organization) to funnel the money and disguise your individual identity.

That is a very good point. If I had to pick one of the two, I'd pick making it harder to get something on a ballot. Maybe also having something along the lines of having to have a super majority as well, if it does make it onto a ballot.

[larrymcg421]

Despite the Ninth Circuit's reputation, it has some pretty heavy-hitting conservatives on the bench--see, e.g., Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Bybee. En banc in the Ninth Circuit draws 11 judges at random--not the full panel--so might get lucky (which the supporters of Prop 8 certainly didn't get on their first go-around, drawing Stephen Reinhardt).

True, but if they conclude that the case will go to SCOTUS no matter what, then there's no point in delaying as all a reversed ruling would do is switch the plaintiff and defendant.

[albionmoonlight]

From what I am reading, this was a pretty narrow opinion--based more on discrimination against homosexuals by changing a law already on the books than on the fundamental right to marriage.

If that is the case, the odds of a cert grant go down a bit, IMHO.

[Toddzilla]

Seth MacFarlane makes a hell of a point - every civil rights battle is always won by the people oppressed.

[Crapshoot]

Actually California needs to get out of the "citizen" initiated propositions entirely. They have almost single-handedly destroyed the state's economy.
Proposition 13: War by initiative | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18548109)

Oh god yes. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing - the proposition system is idiotic.

[Crapshoot]

Dola, this is a no-brainer. The same people were on the wrong side of civil rights, on the wrong side of female suffrage, on the wrong side of slavery... and they will continue to be on the wrong side.

[ISiddiqui]

Apparently the 9th Cir ruling is VERY narrow - seemingly only applying to California and, apparently, tailored by Judge Reinhardt to Justice Kennedy.

[larrymcg421]

I've read the ruling and it is very narrow. They said all Prop 8 did was deny gay couples the word "marriage", but left in place the other benefits that married couples enjoy. Thus the Prop 8 supporters could not argue it harmed the family, since Prop 8 didn't stop gay couples from starting a family. They did add that the ruling didn't mean Prop 8 would be Constitutional if other factors were in play, just that they didn't need to consider those other factors to reach their decision.

[GrantDawg]

Religions won't be forced to marry anyone. The state will have to treat gay marriage equally.


In theory, that should be the case. In practice? I really wonder. I do think that in a "free" country, the government should not be defining what in essence is a religious sacrament. Civil marriage is more a contract between two people, whereas religious marriage is a sacred act defined by the religious beliefs of the individual. Having the government define it instead of the church/synagogue/temple/whatever, is in essence an infringement on the freedom of religion. It is sad to me that many right-wing Christian groups don't recognize that, and instead want to use the government as their own personal strong arm, forcing all to act in the way of their beliefs at the point of the gun. What they don't seem to recognize is that gun can be turned back at them when prevailing winds shift against their beliefs.

[Blackadar]

And a sad day for both decency & the rights of the voters.

edit: And now it's on to the Supremes, where this was going either way.

Absolutely. The rights of a bigoted mob to suppress the rights of a minority group shall not be infringed!

Keep fighting the good fight Jon, even as your kind rightfully goes the way of the dodo.

[Autumn]

Right, if laws against gay marriage are allowed, I'd love to see some more laws, prohibiting inter-religious marriages, only allows virgins to be married, etc. Maybe then they'd get the idea. Many religions have differing rules about marriage, we're not going to start picking one's rules and all going by them.

[Julio Riddols]

Its surprising to me that these churches don't discriminate against atheists or other religions marrying, but they have such a problem with gays marrying. If its such a religious institution, why allow it to be tainted by non believers and people worshipping other gods?

I mean marriage happens everywhere, no matter what the chosen religion of anyone involved is, so I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a union between two adults which is basically a pledge of monogamy on legal paper. The fact that getting married changes so many things legally is weird to me, but I don't see any reason why it should matter.

[JPhillips]

In theory, that should be the case. In practice? I really wonder. I do think that in a "free" country, the government should not be defining what in essence is a religious sacrament. Civil marriage is more a contract between two people, whereas religious marriage is a sacred act defined by the religious beliefs of the individual. Having the government define it instead of the church/synagogue/temple/whatever, is in essence an infringement on the freedom of religion. It is sad to me that many right-wing Christian groups don't recognize that, and instead want to use the government as their own personal strong arm, forcing all to act in the way of their beliefs at the point of the gun. What they don't seem to recognize is that gun can be turned back at them when prevailing winds shift against their beliefs.

In theory I'm fine giving government recognition to civil unions and letting churches determine who is and isn't married. In practice, though, the same people fighting against gay marriage would be firmly opposed to the government changing marriage to civil unions. Discrimination is the point, and that's why over the long haul they're going to lose.

[SirFozzie]

The prevailing opinion that I'm getting from some legally minded friends is that this isn't as good as first read for proponents of gay marriage in the short term as one might think.

Because they only ruled on a very limited part of the appeal (and decided since the issue was decided on the limited part, the rest didn't need to be added), the likely path for this is for the full 9th Circuit to affirm the decision, but then the conservative leaning Supreme Court to decline to hear it, and as such not cause binding precedent.

This does mean that gay marriage will be legal in California, which is a laudable goal.. but it will not be the short term fix to overturn all the OTHER states laws.

If you'll forgive the tortured analogy.. in the dam against preventing gay marriage, this is a sizeable leak. 29 million people is a sizable chunk of people. However, this is not the catastrophic "break the dam" moment that proponents of gay marriage were hoping for, nor the dramatic "bulwark the dam" moment that the defenders of prop8 were hoping for. Instead, the dam will continue to crumble, and deteriorate slowly in the natural course of history, before it fails. That is slow, but inexorable (Think of it this way, in the context of a civil rights issue this is moving rather quickly)..

The victory in the long term is all but certain for proponents of allowing gays to marry.. The key words being the long term.

[larrymcg421]

The prevailing opinion that I'm getting from some legally minded friends is that this isn't as good as first read for proponents of gay marriage in the short term as one might think.

Because they only ruled on a very limited part of the appeal (and decided since the issue was decided on the limited part, the rest didn't need to be added), the likely path for this is for the full 9th Circuit to affirm the decision, but then the conservative leaning Supreme Court to decline to hear it, and as such not cause binding precedent.

This does mean that gay marriage will be legal in California, which is a laudable goal.. but it will not be the short term fix to overturn all the OTHER states laws.

If you'll forgive the tortured analogy.. in the dam against preventing gay marriage, this is a sizeable leak. 29 million people is a sizable chunk of people. However, this is not the catastrophic "break the dam" moment that proponents of gay marriage were hoping for, nor the dramatic "bulwark the dam" moment that the defenders of prop8 were hoping for. Instead, the dam will continue to crumble, and deteriorate slowly in the natural course of history, before it fails. That is slow, but inexorable (Think of it this way, in the context of a civil rights issue this is moving rather quickly)..

The victory in the long term is all but certain for proponents of allowing gays to marry.. The key words being the long term.

While this is somewhat true, denial by the Supreme Court to may not be binding, but will still be cited by courts in other states and circuits and I think it will lead to justices being more likely to take that next step. It may be long term before gay marriage is legal everywhere, but I do think this ruling will speed up the process.

[ISiddiqui]

Also I think the Judge writing the opinion wrote it narrowly so IF the Supreme Court picked it up, Justice Kennedy would be likely to rule against Prop 8 instead of being more queasy in affirming an equal protection arguement. This will allow for more normalization for the practice, as the most populace state in the union allows for homosexuals to marry.

[JediKooter]

Out of curiosity...what if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it? Is it kicked back to the state or is Prop 8 officially dead at that point?

[larrymcg421]

Out of curiosity...what if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it? Is it kicked back to the state or is Prop 8 officially dead at that point?

If SCOTUS refuses to hear, then Prop 8 is dead.

[SackAttack]

Out of curiosity...what if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it? Is it kicked back to the state or is Prop 8 officially dead at that point?

If SCOTUS denies cert, my guess is the previous ruling handed down takes effect. That could be the Ninth Circuit en banc overruling the decision handed down yesterday, or it could be the current decision standing up. What I don't know is whether the losing side could initiate a new case on different grounds or if that's all she wrote.

[JediKooter]

If SCOTUS refuses to hear, then Prop 8 is dead.

Oh ok cool. Thank you.

[JediKooter]

If SCOTUS denies cert, my guess is the previous ruling handed down takes effect. That could be the Ninth Circuit en banc overruling the decision handed down yesterday, or it could be the current decision standing up. What I don't know is whether the losing side could initiate a new case on different grounds or if that's all she wrote.

Ah ok. I'm sure there is still plenty of money in the coffers if the losers wanted to try a different angle, so I wouldn't be surprised by that move.

[larrymcg421]

If SCOTUS denies cert, my guess is the previous ruling handed down takes effect. That could be the Ninth Circuit en banc overruling the decision handed down yesterday, or it could be the current decision standing up. What I don't know is whether the losing side could initiate a new case on different grounds or if that's all she wrote.

If they bypass the en banc and go straight to SCOTUS, then it won't go back to the en banc. A whole new case would have to be initiated in district court on completely different grounds, but the injunction would almost certainly be lifted while the new litigation proceeded as plaintiffs would not be able to meet one of the main burdens for having an injunction imposed, which is likelihood of winning on the merits.

[SackAttack]

If they bypass the en banc and go straight to SCOTUS, then it won't go back to the en banc. A whole new case would have to be initiated in district court on completely different grounds, but the injunction would almost certainly be lifted while the new litigation proceeded as plaintiffs would not be able to meet one of the main burdens for having an injunction imposed, which is likelihood of winning on the merits.

Yes, what I mean is that if the case proceeds to en banc before it then goes to SCOTUS (who would then decline cert), then if en banc overturns yesterday's ruling, Prop 8 could potentially survive.

If they skip en banc and SCOTUS denies cert, then yeah, Prop 8 is dead pending new litigation.

[MrBug708]

Nothing like making sure the breakup rate of gays goes up. Ah well, what's more work for divorce lawyers!

[GrantDawg]

In theory I'm fine giving government recognition to civil unions and letting churches determine who is and isn't married. In practice, though, the same people fighting against gay marriage would be firmly opposed to the government changing marriage to civil unions. Discrimination is the point, and that's why over the long haul they're going to lose.

Exactly why I said they are fighting against their own interest. Infringing on the minority beliefs always seems great until the day your beliefs are the minority.

[BrianD]

I'm often curious why religious groups are pushing for Constitutional amendments against gay marriage, but not for amendments against divorced people remarrying. I don't believe Jesus is said to have commented on homosexuality or gay marriage, but he did say that getting divorced and then remarried is adultery...which breaks one of the commandments. With the current divorce rate being so high, wouldn't you suspect that more divorced people are trying to get married than gay people? Wouldn't that make the divorced marriage issue a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage?

I'm actually asking these questions seriously.

[Toddzilla]

You're trying to apply reason and logic to religion.

That NEVER works.

[molson]

You're trying to apply reason and logic to religion.

That NEVER works.

It can if you look at with an open mind and not with a closed mind (kind of ironic). Writing off everyone else's belief as a whole kind of sounds like the Republican approach to homosexuality.

[sterlingice]

(oh, snap)

SI

[Toddzilla]

It can if you look at with an open mind and not with a closed mind (kind of ironic). Writing off everyone else's belief as a whole kind of sounds like the Republican approach to homosexuality.That's actually a great point.

I should have singled out christianity.

[molson]

That's actually a great point.

I should have singled out christianity.

Eh, I think there's things you can learn from or be inspired by almost any religion. I mean, personally, when I think of Jesus, I don't think of a guy (or symbol) who had a lot of hardcore Republican ideas or anything. I think of him as the guy (or symbol), that cut through the bullshit of Roman politics and gave people an alternative way of seeing the world, through love and acceptance. I'm sure there's bible quotes that someone could throw out that could contradict that, but I could care less about that, it's what I take from it that matters to me. So I am inspired in a way, by Christianity, and can even "get something" out of going to church, or reflecting on that, but am still very much pro-gay marriage (as a policy issue, I'm on the fence on the constitutional side of it)

[MrBug708]

Thankfully I'm an open minded Christian who isn't bothered by this ruling in the slightest. Luckily we have Todd here telling us all how crappy Christians are, to keep us all from getting too self-righteous and uppity!

[RainMaker]

The whole thing is stupid. We all know where things are going. We all know how history will look back on this in 50 or 100 years. People trying to latch on to bigotry this hard are going to look the same as those who were for segregation, slavery, interracial marriage, and women not having rights. The world has progressed, just accept it and moved on. Regardless if the Supreme Court makes a ruling on it, it'll be legal in 10-20 years everywhere anyway.

[SackAttack]

That's actually a great point.

I should have singled out christianity.

Singling out Christianity for the views or actions of the ignorant is like taking it out on physicists when somebody uses a coupla tons of ammonium nitrate to blow a hole in a federal building.

Knowledge, whether empirical or of the faith-based variety, is always going to be subject to abuse by those who are willing to twist hard enough for personal gain. That's true of any field of human endeavor.

You know what the difference is between high-energy physics and religion, though? High-energy physics isn't typically boiled down once a week into easily digestible nuggets for people who basically just want to be reassured that their way of life is The Way to Live.

"Love the Lord thy God with all your heart" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" are fantastically simple concepts, on the face of the matter. Those are the two things Jesus set paramount above the rest of the Law.

But it's really, really hard for people with societal insecurities to measure their faith journeys by those concepts.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to look at the admonishment of Leviticus not "to lay with a man as with a woman" (while at the same time not paying attention to the proscription against eating of the cloven hoof, the shellfish, or wearing mixed-fiber clothing because 'what God has made unclean, He can make clean.').

It's easy to look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and take the lesson that God destroyed Sodom because of gay sex (and not because the people of the city tried to be seriously inhospitable to a man's guests).

Those are things the average Joe/Jane can cherry-pick out of the Bible to make himself or herself feel righteous in his/her faith, and to assure themselves that they're more special than "those people" in the eyes of God.

Which is fine. We've all got our foibles, and nowhere is it written that justice requires complete assent (and that's true whether you consider justice to be marriage equality or the defense of traditional marriage). Where the problem lies is that for the people whose faith is at the same time that strong and that simple, that's a big red button that anybody with a political agenda can push at need.

Abortion is the same way, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.

When I went canvassing in 2010 for my then-House representative, you wouldn't believe how many people I talked to who were politically in agreement with the Democrats on all but one or both of those issues, but that issue was enough to make them vote for somebody they wouldn't otherwise have touched. It wasn't about Christianity, you see. Not directly.

It was about a big, raw, pulsing nerve that keeps getting poked by people telling them that they should really be frightened about the ramifications of...something. Something that would be horribly, terribly bad in wonderfully non-specific ways. Something whose inexorable conclusion was bestiality on the part of their grandchildren.

I think, in some ways, it's more about paranoia than about faith. They're afraid that if society sanctions same-sex relationships, the world as they know it will irrevocably change. That instead of a plethora of open, heterosexual relationships being in public view, they'll find themselves surrounded by dude-on-dude and girl-on-girl action.

Which, the more I think about it, is a can of worms for a different time and thread.

But at the end of the day, it's less about what Christianity is and what it says than about how people use it (which is not all that different from the distinctions drawn between radical Islam and the non-self-explodey variety. Just differently applied).

[fortheglory]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igB0akHTMh0

[RainMaker]

Making up fake hypothetical conversations is a solid way of arguing a point.

[JPhillips]

I'm going to make a video where a cartoon Abraham Lincoln says he's for gay marriage. That way I'll win the internets.

[MrBug708]

Making up fake hypothetical conversations is a solid way of arguing a point.

The whole thing is stupid. We all know where things are going. We all know how history will look back on this in 100 or 150 years. People trying to latch on to bigotry this hard are going to look the same as those who were for segregation, slavery, interracial marriage, women not having rights, and gay marriage. The world has progressed, just accept it and moved on. Regardless if the Supreme Court makes a ruling on it, it'll be legal in 200 years everywhere anyway. Polygamy is here to stay!

:D

[Neon_Chaos]

This is great, but what about weed!?!?!?

[CrimsonFox]

Right, if laws against gay marriage are allowed, I'd love to see some more laws, prohibiting inter-religious marriages, only allows virgins to be married, etc. Maybe then they'd get the idea. Many religions have differing rules about marriage, we're not going to start picking one's rules and all going by them.


bring back stoning and concubines and lawful killin of da womenfolk for doin things we don't like

[CrimsonFox]

incidently gay marriage now legal here in the state of washington

[MrBug708]

incidently gay marriage now legal here in the state of washington

You are from Washington?

This changes everything!

[CrimsonFox]

You are from Washington?

This changes everything!

Not from here, but live here now. And I am wrong. Gregoire is announcing sometime today when she will sign the law. It's been through both Senate and House. And asshats a plenty are bitching. Get this that Kansas church group is going to protest the funeral of those two kids that were killed BECAUSE of the gay marriage thing.

[molson]

The whole thing is stupid. We all know where things are going. We all know how history will look back on this in 50 or 100 years. People trying to latch on to bigotry this hard are going to look the same as those who were for segregation, slavery, interracial marriage, and women not having rights. The world has progressed, just accept it and moved on. Regardless if the Supreme Court makes a ruling on it, it'll be legal in 10-20 years everywhere anyway.

We'll find other ways and reasons to be bigots and look down upon people. Look how some of the "tolerant" react to anyone with faith, or southerners, or the uneducated, or the rural. That can be disguised for a while as disagreements with particular issues, but it's often just phrased and blanket hate of groups.

[CrimsonFox]

Next thing you know people will be saying it's wrong to bang sheep!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

We'll find other ways and reasons to be bigots and look down upon people. Look how some of the "tolerant" react to anyone with faith, or southerners, or the uneducated, or the rural. That can be disguised for a while as disagreements with particular issues, but it's often just phrased and blanket hate of groups.

Don't forget the ostentatiously contrarian.

[CrimsonFox]

Legal by 2040!

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/171/08/171-0826090045-Everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-sex-Gene-Wilder-Sheep-scene.jpg

[sterlingice]

Don't forget the ostentatiously contrarian.

*snicker*

SI

[molson]

Don't forget the ostentatiously contrarian.

No, that's more your individual issue with me which I don't really understand, though I'm always curious about it when you pop in to express it, when I can't remember any interactions with you or anything that would have brought than on.

[JPhillips]

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6875/airplane1rz6.jpg

There's orange juice in the fridge.

[CrimsonFox]

http://images.wikia.com/godfather/images/3/3a/Woltz_horse_head.png

[JPhillips]

We'll find other ways and reasons to be bigots and look down upon people. Look how some of the "tolerant" react to anyone with faith, or southerners, or the uneducated, or the rural. That can be disguised for a while as disagreements with particular issues, but it's often just phrased and blanket hate of groups.

Bigotry may always be with us, but we can stop institutionalizing bigotry in the law. Regardless of what happens in CA people will still be allowed to think gays are teh icky.

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder what would happen if we Americans focused on the economy half as much as we focused on other people's sex-having. If we mustered, somehow, the same sort of passion for a space program or high speed rail, or climate change, or what the hell, world peace—if we mustered passion for those things like we mustered it when pondering whether or not women should be allowed to have sex while taking contraceptives. Pretend for a moment that we had the same amount of legislative obsession with creating new jobs in industry that we do for regulating reproductive health.

There'd be no limit to what we could achieve. But no...let's focus on what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. That's somehow the most important issue facing us as a society, as a species.

FML

If there's any time-travelers out there reading this - can you please abduct me and take me to the future where humanity has gotten over this kind of petty shit and learned to focus on the real issues and is actually striving to reach it's potential?

Please...I beg you.

[larrymcg421]

Future U.S. History Students: 'It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/)

[DanGarion]

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper

[JediKooter]

I think I need to reboot my brain.

[larrymcg421]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/394049_294897047241801_100001645251711_847836_1229587083_n.jpg

[JAG]

http://images.wikia.com/godfather/images/3/3a/Woltz_horse_head.png

I told you NOT to pass me that. ;)

[sterlingice]

Future U.S. History Students: 'It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/)

"While the future students, roughly one in eight of whom were raised by gay or lesbian parents, are scheduled to write essays debating the different viewpoints on gay marriage in the 2010s, a number of them told reporters it was hard to conceive of arguments against something as clearly justified as gay marriage "as though it were some big controversial issue, like marrying your clone."

After concluding the week's examination of the history of gay marriage rights, classroom sources in the year 2083 said they would be moving on to the topic of how their grandparents' generation was too late to do anything about global warming."

Quality stuff

SI

[fortheglory]

Isn't the real issue here that fact that a court decided to go against the will of the people? A referendum was held, and now the court just wants to dismiss the vote tally because it doesn't like it. Isn't this the real debate? Not weather you agree with gay marriage or not?

[Crapshoot]

Isn't the real issue here that fact that a court decided to go against the will of the people? A referendum was held, and now the court just wants to dismiss the vote tally because it doesn't like it. Isn't this the real debate? Not weather you agree with gay marriage or not?

The "will of the people" in the South would have delayed civil rights 30 years - is that ok? Respect for minority rights is a bedrock value.

[Crapshoot]

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper

Pray, tell us what you really think.

[miked]

I'm not overly abreast of the situation, but I don't think the courts dismissed the vote because they didn't like it. I believe they are saying the vote was not constitutional. As has been said numerous times in many threads, the will of the people is not a blank check. There is a judiciary system to make sure the will of the people does not violate the constitution, or at least some interpretation thereof. I mean, Georgia and most southern states would probably vote for the right to ban minorities from schools and work, but it doesn't make it legal.

[sterlingice]

Isn't the real issue here that fact that a court decided to go against the will of the people? A referendum was held, and now the court just wants to dismiss the vote tally because it doesn't like it. Isn't this the real debate? Not weather you agree with gay marriage or not?

But part of the duties of the court can be to stand up for minorities against the tyranny of the majority and this seems like a textbook case of that

SI

[JediKooter]

Isn't the real issue here that fact that a court decided to go against the will of the people? A referendum was held, and now the court just wants to dismiss the vote tally because it doesn't like it. Isn't this the real debate? Not weather you agree with gay marriage or not?

There is no debate. The will of the people (a little more than 50% of the people that actually voted in the state of california), violated the constitution of the united states.

[larrymcg421]

Isn't the real issue here that fact that a court decided to go against the will of the people? A referendum was held, and now the court just wants to dismiss the vote tally because it doesn't like it. Isn't this the real debate? Not weather you agree with gay marriage or not?

The will of the people cannot violate the constitution. The court decided that the referendum violated the 14th Amendment.

[RainMaker]

The reason we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

[JediKooter]

The reason we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Good point.

[DanGarion]

Pray, tell us what you really think.

That people that want to deny rights to others are idiots.

[albionmoonlight]

If there's any time-travelers out there reading this - can you please abduct me and take me to the future where humanity has gotten over this kind of petty shit and learned to focus on the real issues and is actually striving to reach it's potential?

Please...I beg you.

Honestly, there's a reason we all came back in time to hang out now. The future isn't all its cracked up to be. Once the Catholic Church reforms the Trinity in 2115 by replacing the Holy Spirit with Tim Tebow, things get pretty weird. Especially b/c Tebow is actually still alive at that point. (In 2025, as part of his misguided attempts to cure gayness, Marcus Bachmann inadvertently discovers a cure for all other diseases, pretty much eliminating death).

So, yeah, we have gay marriage. But Tim Tebow is God and it's really crowded. Pick your poison,* I guess.















*Metaphorically, I mean. Poison does not really work in the future anymore because of the whole Marcus Bachmann thing. See above.

[Easy Mac]

How about we legalize gay marriage but ban gay divorces. I mean, if they're a few millennia behind on their rights now, we might as well keep it consistent with the rest of history. We can allow divorces around 3500 AD or so.

[JediKooter]

So Tim Tebow is John Titor?

[sterlingice]

No, silly, albionmoonlight is John Titor.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Honestly, there's a reason we all came back in time to hang out now. The future isn't all its cracked up to be. Once the Catholic Church reforms the Trinity in 2115 by replacing the Holy Spirit with Tim Tebow, things get pretty weird. Especially b/c Tebow is actually still alive at that point. (In 2025, as part of his misguided attempts to cure gayness, Marcus Bachmann inadvertently discovers a cure for all other diseases, pretty much eliminating death).

So, yeah, we have gay marriage. But Tim Tebow is God and it's really crowded. Pick your poison,* I guess.

I want to see this movie.

[JediKooter]

No, silly, albionmoonlight is John Titor.

SI

Whoa. Did not see that coming. It's all starting to make sense now.

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL

[larrymcg421]

Also, if that scenario plays out, then we need to give more credence to Newt's moon colony idea.

[sterlingice]

"That's not an astronaut, it's a TV comedian! And he was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife."

SI

[CrimsonFox]

I told you NOT to pass me that. ;)


:lol::funkychickendance:

Awesome! :)

[Caine]

I personally don't care what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom that person chooses to marry. If a man loves another man, and wishes to marry that person, that action doesn't affect me or my children. I think the argument that some levied that the foundation of marriage is between and man and a woman is really a smokescreen, a code that says "I don't like homosexuals", and those people lack the courage to outright say it. That way, they can justify bigotry while trying to maintain the "high ground".

Having said that, there is ZERO fundamental right to marriage, for either straight or gays. The 14th Amendment should not apply because marriage isn't a right. If the majority of people in CA, as bigoted as they may be, chooses to officially define a term, they should have the ability to do that without federal interference. If someone can have a "civil union", and that gives them the same privileges (with insurance, wills, ect) that a marriage does a heterosexual couple ... well, that should be the end of it. How a TERM is defined should be up the states, and right or wrong, the people of California passed a law defining the term. No rights are being infringed.

[DanGarion]

I personally don't care what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom that person chooses to marry. If a man loves another man, and wishes to marry that person, that action doesn't affect me or my children. I think the argument that some levied that the foundation of marriage is between and man and a woman is really a smokescreen, a code that says "I don't like homosexuals", and those people lack the courage to outright say it. That way, they can justify bigotry while trying to maintain the "high ground".

Having said that, there is ZERO fundamental right to marriage, for either straight or gays. The 14th Amendment should not apply because marriage isn't a right. If the majority of people in CA, as bigoted as they may be, chooses to officially define a term, they should have the ability to do that without federal interference. If someone can have a "civil union", and that gives them the same privileges (with insurance, wills, ect) that a marriage does a heterosexual couple ... well, that should be the end of it. How a TERM is defined should be up the states, and right or wrong, the people of California passed a law defining the term. No rights are being infringed.
Great that means civil unions for all blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and multi-race couples! WTF.

Proposition 8 wasn't about defining a term, it was about taking a right away that the state had already given, just as the previous proposition 22.

Maybe some states can start defining terms such as work so the cloud the lines of it being slavery or work, that would be progress.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...

[JediKooter]

I personally don't care what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom that person chooses to marry. If a man loves another man, and wishes to marry that person, that action doesn't affect me or my children. I think the argument that some levied that the foundation of marriage is between and man and a woman is really a smokescreen, a code that says "I don't like homosexuals", and those people lack the courage to outright say it. That way, they can justify bigotry while trying to maintain the "high ground".

Having said that, there is ZERO fundamental right to marriage, for either straight or gays. The 14th Amendment should not apply because marriage isn't a right. If the majority of people in CA, as bigoted as they may be, chooses to officially define a term, they should have the ability to do that without federal interference. If someone can have a "civil union", and that gives them the same privileges (with insurance, wills, ect) that a marriage does a heterosexual couple ... well, that should be the end of it. How a TERM is defined should be up the states, and right or wrong, the people of California passed a law defining the term. No rights are being infringed.

Why call a marriage a civil union because it's two homosexual people? Why not call it a marriage regardless of who it is? Where you chose to get married is up to the people getting married. Marriage has been around long before christianity (lets be honest, it was the mormons that poured a bunch of money into prop 8) has been around and last I checked, no religion has a trademark or owns the word marriage.

But again, the term 'marriage' wasn't what prop 8 was about. Prop 8 was about denying two people of the same sex from legally getting married. You deny a group of people the right to do something that others can do, you've violated the 14th amendment of the constitution.

I tell you what, since it's a small group of bigoted people that think gay people should not be allowed to marry, let's get rid of the word marriage all together and call every single 'marriage' a civil union, regardless if it's straight or gay people. After all, the term means the same thing, right?

[Caine]

Why call a marriage a civil union because it's two homosexual people? Why not call it a marriage regardless of who it is? Where you chose to get married is up to the people getting married. Marriage has been around long before christianity (lets be honest, it was the mormons that poured a bunch of money into prop 8) has been around and last I checked, no religion has a trademark or owns the word marriage.

Because the majority (actually the GREAT majority, over 70%) of people in California wants to define that term in that way.

It's really no different than the Federal term for marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.


But again, the term 'marriage' wasn't what prop 8 was about. Prop 8 was about denying two people of the same sex from legally getting married. You deny a group of people the right to do something that others can do, you've violated the 14th amendment of the constitution.

There's that pesky word again: right. There is no defined right of marriage in any state, anywhere in the United States.

I'll give you a different term, then. There is no difference legally between a civil union and a marriage. Both have the same privileges for living wills, insurance beneficiaries, ect. The only caveat is the NAME. Prop 8 isn't saying homosexuals cannot benefit, by civil unions, everything that heterosexuals can by marriage. They are simply defining the term, just as Clinton did in 1996.

I'm not saying I even agree with it. I think, honestly, that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want (within reason). I'm also a fan of the democratic process, and that was carried out in California. Since marriage is not a right, it's not applicable under the 14th Amendment.

I tell you what, since it's a small group of bigoted people that think gay people should not be allowed to marry, let's get rid of the word marriage all together and call every single 'marriage' a civil union, regardless if it's straight or gay people. After all, the term means the same thing, right?

Actually, I would be ok with that. Leave the term "marriage" for religious connotations, and "civil unions" for all others. Or make everything civil unions. That's fine with me. :)

Side note: not a small group of bigots. The last poll I saw says a great majority of people in the US are against gay marriages. So, there's a BUNCH of bigots out there.

[JPhillips]

Side note: not a small group of bigots. The last poll I saw says a great majority of people in the US are against gay marriages. So, there's a BUNCH of bigots out there.

Don't know what poll you saw.

November '11 Pew 46/44 favoring gay marriage

July '11 WaPo 51/45 favoring legal gay marriage

July '11 Quinnipiac 46/48 favor gay marriage in your state

May '11 Gallup 53/45 favoring legal gay marriage

[Caine]

Fox News Poll: 65/43 against gay marriage June 2011
Democray Corps Poll: 42/35 against gay marriage March 2011.

And before you start maligning the poll makers, consider this: only 7 states recognize gay marriage. It's been defeated in multiple states. If the polls you states were correct, the number of gay marriage stats would be much, much higher.

[DaddyTorgo]

If you're getting your news from Fox then really there's no sense in trying to have a conversation based on facts with you.

[Crapshoot]

Because the majority (actually the GREAT majority, over 70%) of people in California wants to define that term in that way.



Where on earth do you get this number from? If Prop 8 was on the ballot this year in 2012, it would lose. As it is, it barely won in 2008 (52-48).

[Caine]

I could say the same if you get your facts from CNN, or Gallup. Any poll is politically motivated either right or left.

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

I may not like it, but there's a bunch of laws I don't agree with.

[Scoobz0202]

Gallup? Really? Has things changed over the years? I was under the impression that they were the "best."

[DaddyTorgo]

I could say the same if you get your facts from CNN, or Gallup. Any poll is politically motivated either right or left.

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

I may not like it, but there's a bunch of laws I don't agree with.

LMAO.

Some polls are better than others though - more accurate and less biased. Those two aren't.

You believe that marriage isn't a right - the courts obviosuly disagree with you.

You're trying to cloak this in some greater "democracy" or "constitutionality" argument, but the reality is that by defending the bigots you're lumping yourself in with them (either because you're a bigot and just don't want to admit it, or just because you're so dogmatic about the letter of the law that you refuse to see that it's inumane).

[Crapshoot]

I could say the same if you get your facts from CNN, or Gallup. Any poll is politically motivated either right or left.

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

I may not like it, but there's a bunch of laws I don't agree with.

No, that's not how it works. If a bunch of Confederate idiots want to bring back the Confederacy and slavery and have 70% of a state backing it, we don't say, "the people's will!". We recognize it as an idiotic infringement of the rights of the minority by the majority.

[JPhillips]

Fox News Poll: 65/43 against gay marriage June 2011
Democray Corps Poll: 42/35 against gay marriage March 2011.

And before you start maligning the poll makers, consider this: only 7 states recognize gay marriage. It's been defeated in multiple states. If the polls you states were correct, the number of gay marriage stats would be much, much higher.

The Democracy Corps poll was only taken in 50 battleground districts and isn't valid to use as a national poll. The Fox poll is so out of line with the other polls done in 2011 that it's at best an outlier and at worst propaganda.

[Caine]

You believe that marriage isn't a right - the courts obviosuly disagree with you.

That federal court does -- we'll see about SCOTUS.


You're trying to cloak this in some greater "democracy" or "constitutionality" argument, but the reality is that by defending the bigots you're lumping yourself in with them (either because you're a bigot and just don't want to admit it, or just because you're so dogmatic about the letter of the law that you refuse to see that it's inumane).

Oooh, I love this. So, because I'm defending the vote by the majority of people, I suddenly become one of the people. That's much the same as someone defending the right of free speech of KKK members a racist. There's a very, VERY distinct difference between defending someone's rights (the right of determination by vote) under the Constitution and the actions of that person. Very, very different.

I'm a Constitutionalist. Strictly speaking, I believe in the adherance in the foundation of this country. Which lead to ...


If a bunch of Confederate idiots want to bring back the Confederacy and slavery and have 70% of a state backing it, we don't say, "the people's will!". We recognize it as an idiotic infringement of the rights of the minority by the majority.

I can argue the HUGE difference between slavery and gay rights, but that's another topic. To take your ridiculous comparison a step forward -- if 70% of 3/4th of all states vote to change or eliminate the 14th Amendment, or amend the Constitution to allow slavery again, guess what? It's back.

That's the wonderment and the danger in the Constitution -- it's flexibility.

[JediKooter]

Because the majority (actually the GREAT majority, over 70%) of people in California wants to define that term in that way.

It's really no different than the Federal term for marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.

Actually it barely won. 52 point something to 48 point something. Winning with over 600K votes and in california, that's a very narrow margin.


There's that pesky word again: right. There is no defined right of marriage in any state, anywhere in the United States.

By allowing marriage to continue for over 200 years, by default, it has become a right. However, and I'm probably being pedantic here, the lines of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence, also known as our "unalienable rights", covers marriage, in my opinion.

I'll give you a different term, then. There is no difference legally between a civil union and a marriage. Both have the same privileges for living wills, insurance beneficiaries, ect. The only caveat is the NAME. Prop 8 isn't saying homosexuals cannot benefit, by civil unions, everything that heterosexuals can by marriage. They are simply defining the term, just as Clinton did in 1996.

I'm not saying I even agree with it. I think, honestly, that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want (within reason). I'm also a fan of the democratic process, and that was carried out in California. Since marriage is not a right, it's not applicable under the 14th Amendment.

In all honesty, that argument falls into the "White's Only" and "Blacks Only" water fountains. Separate but equal. That didn't pass constitutional muster either.

Actually, I would be ok with that. Leave the term "marriage" for religious connotations, and "civil unions" for all others. Or make everything civil unions. That's fine with me. :)

I understand what you're saying, but, why is it if the marriage is between two men instead of between a man and a woman, it should not be called a marriage? What is the rational and logical basis for not calling it a marriage?

Side note: not a small group of bigots. The last poll I saw says a great majority of people in the US are against gay marriages. So, there's a BUNCH of bigots out there.

The small group I was referring to is the outspoken and vehement people opposed to anything gay. I apologize, I should have been more specific. I do believe that the tide is turning on those who are opposed to gay marriage to those who are in favor. It's getting to be almost neck and neck.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm a Constitutionalist. Strictly speaking, I believe in the adherance in the foundation of this country. Which lead to ...



Strict Constitutionalists are intellectually lazy IMO. There's nothing infallible about a document that was written by MEN...great men but flawed men, over 200 years ago.

[CrimsonFox]

The whole prohibition thing was just kinda lost on you, wasn't it.

Heck here they vote in light rail systems and unvote them the next year like clockwork.

[RainMaker]

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic. Just because 51% of people vote to discriminate against 49% of the people does not make it law. Our country was setup for this exact reason. So that if a group had 51% of the population, they couldn't discriminate agains the other 49%.

You can claim marriage isn't a right, but the Supreme Court has viewed it as one for nearly half a century.

[RainMaker]

That federal court does -- we'll see about SCOTUS.

SCOTUS did, half a century ago. Read up on Loving vs Virginia. If they want to claim marriage is not a right, then they would overturn that ruling too. It would be legal to ban interracial marriages since marriage isn't a "right".

[fortheglory]

I'm not overly abreast of the situation, but I don't think the courts dismissed the vote because they didn't like it. I believe they are saying the vote was not constitutional. As has been said numerous times in many threads, the will of the people is not a blank check. There is a judiciary system to make sure the will of the people does not violate the constitution, or at least some interpretation thereof. I mean, Georgia and most southern states would probably vote for the right to ban minorities from schools and work, but it doesn't make it legal.

A very good point, but why hold the referendum in the first place then? I think Caine hit the nail on the head in post #112

[miked]

I think the referendum was stupid. It was bankrolled by church groups and bigots, that's why they held it. There are some people that feel the need to impose their social beliefs on everyone and it's gotten much louder and more organized (ie more money) over the past several years. So there you have it. The referendum was stupid, and most were complaining that it was unconstitutional before the vote came out. Maybe states need to see how things get on the ballot :shrug:

[Blackadar]

Strict Constitutionalists are intellectually lazy IMO.

No doubt. Just look at this thread. It's fun to see how the "strict Constitutionalists" don't know a damn thing about the law or prior SCOTUS rulings...shows how little effort and research they put in before developing their opinions. Then to come on this board and try to argue about it... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[BrianD]

Fox News Poll: 65/43 against gay marriage June 2011

65+43=108

This is either a misprint, a fabrication, or the results of a poll with at least 8 options and each of the percentages rounded up. Source aside, this should raise some flags.

[BrianD]

A very good point, but why hold the referendum in the first place then? I think Caine hit the nail on the head in post #112

Anybody have any stats on how many laws/referendums have been struck down as unconstitutional? I'm guessing that number would be pretty large. In any event, constitutionality is not determined before a vote is taken. It is only determined before something actually goes into law.

[CrimsonFox]

Anybody have any stats on how many laws/referendums have been struck down as unconstitutional? I'm guessing that number would be pretty large. In any event, constitutionality is not determined before a vote is taken. It is only determined before something actually goes into law.

Yes I do,
According to the Constitutional Gallup Poll, 42% of people found that 63% of laws and referendums were struck down after a 75% majority vote and 87% found that 25% of them were struck down when it was 50/50.

[BrianD]

Strict Constitutionalists are intellectually lazy IMO. There's nothing infallible about a document that was written by MEN...great men but flawed men, over 200 years ago.

This may lead to a tangent, but I think strict constitutionalists lead to a bigger problem than just being intellectually lazy. It seems to be an easy jump include what the founding fathers "meant" into the constitution. We can see this very strongly in the religious freedom debate in the country. The constitution says "freedom of religion". Some would argue that it was meant as "freedom to practice your version of Christianity". These two provide a dangerous combination. The constitution needs to be seen as a living document. Rather than discuss what was meant, go through the amendment process.

[BrianD]

Yes I do,
According to the Constitutional Gallup Poll, 42% of people found that 63% of laws and referendums were struck down after a 75% majority vote and 87% found that 25% of them were struck down when it was 50/50.

Nice. :)

Answering my own question - with more fact checking needed:
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539

[ISiddiqui]

SCOTUS did, half a century ago. Read up on Loving vs Virginia. If they want to claim marriage is not a right, then they would overturn that ruling too. It would be legal to ban interracial marriages since marriage isn't a "right".

I was going to make this point. Has our basic legal education been this degraded that people don't realize this?

[molson]

The constitution needs to be seen as a living document. Rather than discuss what was meant, go through the amendment process.

Why does a living document need an amendment process?

[DaddyTorgo]

I was going to make this point. Has our basic legal education been this degraded that people don't realize this?

Apparently so.

Or in the strict Constitutionalist view (which makes no sense), since it wasn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution (although it was later clarified as such by a branch to which the Constitution grants the power to make such decisions), it doesn't count.

Real head-scratcher.

[cartman]

A very good point, but why hold the referendum in the first place then? I think Caine hit the nail on the head in post #112

It is much easier to get a referendum on a ballot in California than in other states. If it is a referendum you are trying to put on the ballot is a regular statute (as was originally tried in 2000, with the nearly identically worded Prop 22, which was later declared unconstitutional) you need to gather signatures supporting the inclusion of the proposition totaling at least 5% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election. For a constitutional amendment (which Prop 22 was repackaged as Prop 8), you need to gather signatures totaling at least 8% of the previous gubernatorial election.

Keep in mind that to sign the petition you didn't have to vote in the last election, just be a registered voter. In the 2006 election, there were approx. 8.9 million voters in the CA governor's race. That meant that approx. 700,000 signatures had to be gathered from registered voters out of a pool of 17.5 million registered voters.

So, if you take the population of California as a whole, around 2% of the population can join together to introduce amendments to the state constitution.

[mckerney]

I was going to make this point. Has our basic legal education been this degraded that people don't realize this?

We've done a good job teaching people that the constitution means whatever they want it to.

[ISiddiqui]

That goes to the general question. Is the Constitution a tool for a happy society & government or an end in and of itself? Too many folks think the later, IMO.

[JPhillips]

Does the Constitution serve us or do we serve the Constitution?

[Blackadar]

That goes to the general question. Is the Constitution a tool for a happy society & government or an end in and of itself? Too many folks think the later, IMO.

Nothing exists in isolation. Even the Constitution.

[BrianD]

Why does a living document need an amendment process?

Because if you can't change it, it isn't a living document?

[bronconick]

I'm convinced that even the founding fathers expected us to get together every so often and craft a new constitution. The second way to introduce amendments is to have states call for a constitutional convention. If you raised one now, they'd probably be astonished that we're using the same one 230 years later.

[sterlingice]

The constitution needs to be seen as a living document. Rather than discuss what was meant, go through the amendment process.

The US Constitution is a few pages long. About 50 if you include all the amendments, if you make the pages small and sell it so that people can keep it on a breast pocket, next to their Bible or snifter of Scotch.

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Finally, while the "Founding Fathers" were, in a lot of ways, brilliant men. Putting them on some sort of odd pedestal as infallible is unhealthy hero worship at best to downright dangerously luddite.

SI

[JediKooter]

The US Constitution is a few pages long. About 50 if you include all the amendments, if you make the pages small and sell it so that people can keep it on a breast pocket, next to their Bible or snifter of Scotch.

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Finally, while the "Founding Fathers" were, in a lot of ways, brilliant men. Putting them on some sort of odd pedestal as infallible is unhealthy hero worship at best to downright dangerously luddite.

SI

This...is a damn fine post.

[CrimsonFox]

Nice. :)

Answering my own question - with more fact checking needed:
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539


yeah, C wut I did thar? :)

[SirFozzie]

I didn't see 2/3rds anywhere in there, therefore, the numbers are invalid ;)

[sterlingice]

I didn't see 2/3rds anywhere in there, therefore, the numbers are invalid ;)

Who are you? Quiksand?

SI

[SirFozzie]

FOFC Traditions must be maintained, that is all.

[BrianD]

The US Constitution is a few pages long. About 50 if you include all the amendments, if you make the pages small and sell it so that people can keep it on a breast pocket, next to their Bible or snifter of Scotch.

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Finally, while the "Founding Fathers" were, in a lot of ways, brilliant men. Putting them on some sort of odd pedestal as infallible is unhealthy hero worship at best to downright dangerously luddite.

SI

I agree with all of this. I didn't mean to imply that all laws should be amended into the constitution, just that you can't change what the constitution says because "that isn't what they meant". If people don't like what the constitution says, they do have an avenue to change it - namely the amendments.

I just get very nervous about people who claim to be strict constitutionalists and who want to incorporate what was "meant". Seems like you could find a way to justify just about anything that way. I also don't like the idea of deciding what the founding fathers would think about specific issues today. It really doesn't matter what they think. It matters what we think and how we craft legislation based on the rules created in the constitution. We can't pass laws that are unconstitutional, we can only amend the constitution to prevent those laws from being unconstitutional. Thankfully it is not trivialy easy to pass an amendment. Civil rights would get trashed if it was easy.

[mckerney]

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/)

[sterlingice]

I agree with all of this. I didn't mean to imply that all laws should be amended into the constitution, just that you can't change what the constitution says because "that isn't what they meant". If people don't like what the constitution says, they do have an avenue to change it - namely the amendments.

I just get very nervous about people who claim to be strict constitutionalists and who want to incorporate what was "meant". Seems like you could find a way to justify just about anything that way. I also don't like the idea of deciding what the founding fathers would think about specific issues today. It really doesn't matter what they think. It matters what we think and how we craft legislation based on the rules created in the constitution. We can't pass laws that are unconstitutional, we can only amend the constitution to prevent those laws from being unconstitutional. Thankfully it is not trivialy easy to pass an amendment. Civil rights would get trashed if it was easy.

Wasn't really disagreeing with what you were saying- just expanding on it and speaking more towards "whither strict constitutionalism?"

SI

[molson]

There is a ton of ground being strict constitutionalism and "the constitution says whatever I want it say, because it's 'living'". Fortunately, 99%, if not 100% of our appellate judges are in that ground

[BrianD]

There is a ton of ground being strict constitutionalism and "the constitution says whatever I want it say, because it's 'living'". Fortunately, 99%, if not 100% of our appellate judges are in that ground

It seems like we aren't connecting. I don't think anybody says that "the constitution says whatever I want it to say, because it is 'living'". But the constitution can be made to say whatever I want it to say if I get enough people to agree with me and pass an amendment. It is living because it can change. There is a process for it. Being a strict constitutionalist isn't necessarily bad unless a) you don't allow for the possibility of amendments, or b) you try to interpret what the founding fathers "meant" and say that is part of the constitution.

I think banning gay marriage is an assault on civil rights. I think passing a law to ban it is unconstitutional since the courts have tied marriage to our rights. From a moral standpoint, I think the ban is just plain wrong. Having said all of that, I still recognize the mechanism that is in place to allow a sufficient number of people to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow its ban. From a practical standpoint, I don't see that ever happening...which is good.

[sterlingice]

I think, tho, in addition, we need to be careful with "you can always amend the Constitution" which seems to be the chorus for anyone looking to do something that disagrees with a very strict reading of the Constitution. Yes, you can, but unless it a law violates the Constitution and, very importantly, by extension, the laws that have come since and those that are judicially reviewed and upheld- there is no need for an amendment. It seems like a convenient crutch for anyone who wants an impossible super-majority of 75% for anyone who disagrees with them.

SI

[JPhillips]

The Constitution also isn't clear on very much. The wording is ambiguous enough that it takes the Supremes to interpret it. That interpretation can naturally change with different justices without any of them simply trying to impose their political preferences.

Take the 2nd amendment. You simply can't argue that it's absolutely clear that militias or individuals should have the right to bear arms.

[BrianD]

I think, tho, in addition, we need to be careful with "you can always amend the Constitution" which seems to be the chorus for anyone looking to do something that disagrees with a very strict reading of the Constitution. Yes, you can, but unless it a law violates the Constitution and, very importantly, by extension, the laws that have come since and those that are judicially reviewed and upheld- there is no need for an amendment. It seems like a convenient crutch for anyone who wants an impossible super-majority of 75% for anyone who disagrees with them.

SI

But isn't it true that you can always amend the constitution? If sufficient people wanted to ban gay marriage, or bring back slavery with a constitutional amendment, they could. That is why people keep turning to the constitutional amendment when their preferred brand of bigotry gets shot down. It would be an avenue if enough people wanted it. Fortunately, that level of bigotry doesn't exist.

[JediKooter]

But isn't it true that you can always amend the constitution? If sufficient people wanted to ban gay marriage, or bring back slavery with a constitutional amendment, they could. That is why people keep turning to the constitutional amendment when their preferred brand of bigotry gets shot down. It would be an avenue if enough people wanted it. Fortunately, that level of bigotry doesn't exist.

If I remember correctly, it's a state's legislature that votes on constitutional amendments, not the constituents.

EDIT: From - http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention....

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures.

So, for what it's worth, no where did I read that a constitutional amendment is voted on by the voters. So I guess it's safe to say that a group of voters would not be able to reinstate slavery. :)

[BrianD]

So, for what it's worth, no where did I read that a constitutional amendment is voted on by the voters. So I guess it's safe to say that a group of voters would not be able to reinstate slavery. :)

This is the Internet where nobody admits being wrong, so I'll change my argument to say that voters can indirectly reinstate slavery...through their representatives. :)

[larrymcg421]

I would imagine that a legislature could delegate approval to the voters if they wished.

[JediKooter]

This is the Internet where nobody admits being wrong, so I'll change my argument to say that voters can indirectly reinstate slavery...through their representatives. :)

I'm sure there's got to be law somewhere that says they must have pitchforks, boiling tar and torches to do so though. :D

[cartman]

I would imagine that a legislature could delegate approval to the voters if they wished.

They did that with the selection of US Senators. But that took, wait for it..., wait for it..., a Constitutional amendment.

[larrymcg421]

They did that with the selection of US Senators. But that took, wait for it..., wait for it..., a Constitutional amendment.

The amendment forced all states to go that route. That doesn't mean the legislature couldn't have done that willingly before then. Since the power was in the hands of the state legislature, I doubt it would've been unconstitutional for a state to pass a law saying in effect, "we the legislature will appoint whoever the voters choose."

[SackAttack]

If I remember correctly, it's a state's legislature that votes on constitutional amendments, not the constituents.

EDIT: From - Constitutional Amendment Process (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/)

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention....

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures.

So, for what it's worth, no where did I read that a constitutional amendment is voted on by the voters. So I guess it's safe to say that a group of voters would not be able to reinstate slavery. :)

They could, but the state legislature would have to defer to them on the matter, and realistically, if there's a significant enough proportion of people in the state in favor of reinstating slavery, their representatives probably reflect that desire in the makeup of the state Legislature, and so would feel comfortable casting that vote.

If the Legislature reflects the opposite desire from the state, they're probably not going to defer to the voters knowing what the outcome is going to be.

Unless it's symbolic - sufficient states have already approved an Amendment that what Mississippi wants doesn't matter - you're probably not going to see a Legislature defer to the people.

[RainMaker]

It is funny to see the hypocrisy on both sides though when arguing constitutionality. For instance, strict constitutionalists typically oppose any kind of restrictions on gun ownership. But the constitution doesn't say I have a right to own hollow point bullets. But when it comes to pornography, they argue that it's not covered under free speech because nothing in the constitution gives the right to it specifically.

I just think it's funny that the left view 1A the same way that the right view 2A. It's not strict vs loose, it's people choosing Judges based on whether they'll do what they want. Bush v Gore was a liberal decision if you remember that the right celebrated.

[molson]

But isn't it true that you can always amend the constitution? If sufficient people wanted to ban gay marriage, or bring back slavery with a constitutional amendment, they could. That is why people keep turning to the constitutional amendment when their preferred brand of bigotry gets shot down. It would be an avenue if enough people wanted it. Fortunately, that level of bigotry doesn't exist.

With an extremely liberal constitutional philosophy (as opposed to policy-liberal), you wouldn't need an amendment to bring back slavery. Justices could just find a right to own slaves in the first amendment somewhere, and find that that right outweighs others that had been previously recognized. They'd need the case to be able to make that holding of course, but it would be a proper exercise of judicial power on the more extreme living constitution theories.

The liberal-policy people have been much better historically at utilizing appellate courts to constitute change, but it can work the other way to, like with citizens' united. If conservatives could ever figure out how to better utilize judicial activism and liberal constitutional interpretation to further their own policy goals, a "living constitution" wouldn't look so good after all. That's why I always think the constitutional analysis part is almost always smoke and mirrors. It comes down to policy, and everything works around that. And I know there's nothing really WRONG with that, it's how people have figured out how to get things done through the system, but from a neutral perspective, viewing what appellate courts do, and really trying to study constitutional analysis in a content-neutral way (like appellate judges are supposed to do, in theory), it always looks silly to me, and I wonder how much less important the law, and especially the constitution, can get. We have this "evolving standards of decency" 8th amendment test, and every time they whip it out, they change the law in more than half the states. So the "evolving standards of decency" must only be based on their own personal opinions on sentencing, and their belief, I suppose, that they're more qualified to determine appropriate sentences that legislatures and state courts.

[Caine]

SCOTUS did, half a century ago. Read up on Loving vs Virginia. If they want to claim marriage is not a right, then they would overturn that ruling too. It would be legal to ban interracial marriages since marriage isn't a "right".

Thank you for the info. I retract my stance. The Supreme Court ruling was clear, that marriage is a "basic right of man", so clearly a ban on any minority for marrying because they are a part of that minority is counter to the 14th Amendment.

[lcjjdnh]

Possible en banc in Ninth Circuit first?

Asking for en banc rehearing:
Prop. 8: Rehearing to be asked : SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/prop-8-rehearing-to-be-asked/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scotusblog%2FpFXs+%28SCOTUSblog%29)

[SirFozzie]

Another judge strikes down part of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

Another court finds Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/02/another-court-finds-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-115243.html)

[SackAttack]

"appointed by George W. Bush..."

OMG LIBERAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

[Crapshoot]

Maryland's senate just passed gay marriage - should be law within a week. It will look interesting in 2016 when Christie is running against O'Malley; I think gay marriage support will be a positive, not a negative by then.

[molson]

Here's a transcript of the Holllingsworth v. Perry Supreme Court oral argument if anyone's interested. I'm not sure when these became available the day of the argument, but I think that's relatively new phenomenon.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/perry.transcript.pdf

[JPhillips]

Scalia is turning into a b grade AM radio host:

“If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples,” he said, “you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”

“I don’t think we know the answer to that,” he said. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child? … That’s a possible deleterious effect, isn’t it?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retorted that Scalia’s question was irrelevant because California permits same sex couples to adopt regardless of whether they’re married.

“It’s true, but irrelevant,” Scalia rejoined. “They’re arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to states other than California, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples. And so even though states that believe it is harmful — and I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it is certainly true that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”

[dawgfan]

And so even though states that believe it is harmful — and I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it is certainly true that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.

Translation:

There are scientific answers to this question, but they contradict my own personal views on the matter so I will choose to ignore that they exist.

[mckerney]

Scalia is turning into a b grade AM radio host:

Turning into? You mean he wasn't already when parroting Republican talking points during the health care reform hearings?

[BrianD]

I really didn't understand the "when did it become unconstitutional?" question. He can't rule on the case if he doesn't know when it became unconstitutional? Isn't the whole point of the court to decide - right now - what is and isn't constitutional?

[DaddyTorgo]

I really didn't understand the "when did it become unconstitutional?" question. He can't rule on the case if he doesn't know when it became unconstitutional? Isn't the whole point of the court to decide - right now - what is and isn't constitutional?

That's just Scalia being Scalia.

[larrymcg421]

They spent much time on the standing issue and may just avoid the merits entirely and say petitioners don't have standing. If they do reach the merits, it will probably be a narrow ruling that applies only to CA and other states with similar laws. I hope I'm wrong and the ruling is broader. No matter what, I'm pretty sure Prop 8 is dead.

[larrymcg421]

I really didn't understand the "when did it become unconstitutional?" question. He can't rule on the case if he doesn't know when it became unconstitutional? Isn't the whole point of the court to decide - right now - what is and isn't constitutional?

It was just a rhetorical exercise for him to point out that the meaning of the Constitution hasn't changed over time. I really thought Olson owned him on that exchange when he pointed out how the court reversed itself from Plessy to Brown.

[BrianD]

It was an interesting question as to why states that offer something are being unconstitutional while those offering nothing were not. I'm not sure the arguments for this case (separate but equal being unconstitutional) can be expanded to the rest of the states, but I would have loved for the federal advocate to agree that the other states would need to be addressed.

[BrianD]

It was just a rhetorical exercise for him to point out that the meaning of the Constitution hasn't changed over time. I really thought Olson owned him on that exchange when he pointed out how the court reversed itself from Plessy to Brown.

I'm not so sure as he had an answer for when the Brown issue became unconstitutional. I don't know that his answer was right, and that probably isn't really the point. He asked a question that he know Olson hadn't thought about in order to justify what he is already planning to rule. I think Olson handled him decently well, but not great.

[RainMaker]

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/)

[larrymcg421]

I'm not so sure as he had an answer for when the Brown issue became unconstitutional. I don't know that his answer was right, and that probably isn't really the point. He asked a question that he know Olson hadn't thought about in order to justify what he is already planning to rule. I think Olson handled him decently well, but not great.

Scalia said the 14th Amendment, but Olson correctly pointed out that the court ruled segregation was legal in Plessy vs. Ferguson well after the 14th was adopted. Then the court reversed itself in Brown several decades later.

[larrymcg421]

It was an interesting question as to why states that offer something are being unconstitutional while those offering nothing were not. I'm not sure the arguments for this case (separate but equal being unconstitutional) can be expanded to the rest of the states, but I would have loved for the federal advocate to agree that the other states would need to be addressed.

They were only making that argument because it's the basis of the lower court ruling that was being appealed. They were making a narrow argument in order to persuade Kennedy. The broader arguments have been made in amicus briefs and the court could rely on them if they so chose (similar to the Obamacare case).

[kcchief19]

I've really been trying to figure out what the court's motivation is for taking these cases. Had they refused, Proposition 8 and parts of DOMA would be unconstitutional, so one could deduce they are hearing the cases to reverse those decisions and affirm constitutionality of both.

The general consensus appears to be that this is a social justice question that will eventually lead to the legalization of gay marriage, whether it's now or 50 or 100 years from now. Roberts doesn't seem like the kind of guy that wants his decision to be reversed by a future court.

The most logical conclusion is that Roberts will find some middle ground decision. I'm not a legal expert, but if the justices rule the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing, wouldn't that throw out all legal proceedings since the case began? Therefore, Prop 8 would be in effect but in order to strike it down, an opponent would have to refile and California would have to defend?

The DOMA arguments will be interesting as well. I'm not sure where the middle ground is there. I'm fully expecting 5-4 decisions, and it wouldn't surprise me if Roberts landed with the liberal justices on some less than victory for both sides.

[larrymcg421]

No, if they rule that petitioners don't have standing then Prop 8 is dead. The court would be saying that the petitioners didn't have a right to appeal Judge Walker's District Court ruling that threw out Prop 8.

[Crapshoot]

Yup. My guess is Prop 8 gets thrown out for standing (so that gay marriage is now legal in California), and DOMA gets invalidated (at least the section denying federal benefits). It splits the baby, without a sweeping ruling. Lawyers here have a better read, but the trend in gay marriage is so overwhelming that it is simply a matter of time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No, if they rule that petitioners don't have standing then Prop 8 is dead. The court would be saying that the petitioners didn't have a right to appeal Judge Walker's District Court ruling that threw out Prop 8.

Making it clear that the other thing that needs to be thrown out is Judge Walker.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yup. My guess is Prop 8 gets thrown out for standing (so that gay marriage is now legal in California), and DOMA gets invalidated (at least the section denying federal benefits). It splits the baby, without a sweeping ruling. Lawyers here have a better read, but the trend in gay marriage is so overwhelming that it is simply a matter of time.

You mean that trend that consistently shows voters in the vast majority of states clearly barring it from happening?

Those are not exactly ancient history votes.

[digamma]

Well, last November seemed to reverse the ballot box trend. The poll numbers certainly trend towards more and more support for gay marriage. Nate Silver has more on the trend (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/).

For me personally, I'm very proud to be associated with my former law firm today, but that's neither here nor there.

[dawgfan]

Well, last November seemed to reverse the ballot box trend. The poll numbers certainly trend towards more and more support for gay marriage. Nate Silver has more on the trend (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/).
Shhhh, don't bother JIMGA with facts - he's got a morality crusade to engage in!