9th Circuit Declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

Oh ok cool. Thank you.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

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]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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!

[Neon_Chaos]

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

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

incidently gay marriage now legal here in the state of washington

You are from Washington?

This changes everything!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Don't forget the ostentatiously contrarian.

*snicker*

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

There's orange juice in the fridge.

[CrimsonFox]

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Someone else's post elsewhere

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

[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]

[JAG]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I told you NOT to pass me that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by onion

"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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

Good point.