Cali Folks (Prop 8 Supreme Court Related)
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
Did their ruling yesterday come as a surprise or was it expected?
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
Comments
I live in West Hollywood. Last night when I heard a few extra helicopters in the air & some sirens, I remembered, the supreme court ruling announcement. Must not have went well, I thought.
I'm all for Gay Marraige rights and think this issue is such divisive distraction to the rest of what's going on, but the people voted against it. You can't really argue with that, for right or wrong. It would set a very dangerous precedent if the court overturned the vote of the people. Please do not talk about the 2000 election in the context of this conversation.
I expected the court to vote with the people.
Additionally if two people want to join a legal contract on their own they have that right 100%. The only thing missing from this would be the workplace benefits thing, which is really the larger issue.
People need to set their opinions and dissapointment aside; the voters have made their decision as embarassing as it may be and hard for people to accept.
"certain things, namely removing the rights of a minority group, should NEVER be left to a vote. Why would America, a country that was founded on protecting the rights of individuals let a mob strip rights away from a smaller group they don't like?"
I have to say I agree with my friend.
it will happen.
I'm not super familiar with the history of this issue as it relates to California, but why didn't this go to the State Supreme Court in the beginning of the process then?
Seems like the path this went down was set up for a referendum which has resulted in this fall-out.
I'm pro-gay marraige BTW, but legal process is what it is; unless it goes to the supreme court; you're going to get a varying result from state to state depending on how the process has been followed.
them there fightin' words.
That's what happens when people feel that others rights are being stripped away...and the irony is the hate causes hate?
The role of the court in this situation is to overturn any law that is unconstitutional, whether that law was created by the legislature or popular referendum. The Supreme Court in California clearly failed to uphold the protections granted by the California Equal Protection Clause.
This is what Iowa did.
Is there precedent in California where the general population voted on something and the court reversed that vote? Honest question.
Remember Prop 187? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187
I hate the ballot initiative process with a passion.
The true danger is in submitting civil rights to a popular vote. The Court is charged with interpreting and safeguarding the state's constitution, not carrying out the will of the voters. One of the reasons why federal judges (and some state judges) are appointed for life is so that they need not pander to voters in order to ensure reelection.
I don't disagree with you here, but what are the options for CA at this point?
I thought I heard that someone was filing suit on the national level.
Never-ending referenda and counter-referenda, most likely.
yes, they still stand. that's because the proposition as drafted did not address whether it had "retroactive" force. i.e., whether it nullified same-sex marriages entered into prior to its enactment.
Right.
Just seems bogus.
These people over here have the right, while these people over here don't...
Lame.
This whole thing need to be taken care of once and for all and let the government and it's people move onto bigger issues. Like cali not going bankrupt.
Thus the court decision upheld the prop8 amendment to the constitution.
I guess prop 8 also overturned whatever part of the state constitution guaranteed equal protection.
Or whatever was in there that had the court deciding in favor of gay marriage a few years ago.
You all need to go out and gather signatures for the prop that will write gay marriage into the constitution and nullify prop8.
not exactly. the cali supreme court flatly rejected the argument (advanced by the attorney general) that cali voters were prohibited from amending the constitution even if it meant that it extinguished rights that were once deemed unalienable by the high court.
Prop 8 was styled an "amendment" to the California Constitution. In California, the Constitution may be amended by popular vote. The plaintiffs argued that Prop 8 was considerably broader than an amendment--that it was, in fact, a "revision," which may not be imposed by referendum. The court disagreed.
I have to disagree with your friend, because he doesn't know what the fudge he is talking about.
If we are talking about marriage as it has been understood for the majority of human history then gays do have a right to marry one another. They can go to a lawyer get a contract drawn up and boom: Its F*ck gay day and everyone's celebrating
If however we are talking about state sponsored 'marriage' then gays have as much right to it as hetero's: none. It is a state conferred benefit and as such it could be abolished tomorrow and no-ones rights would have been effected in the slightest.
Neither does pointing out its discriminatory nature have any relevance. It was introduced to promote certain behavior over others, it's supposed to discriminate; and the changes homo's want to introduce would not make it non discriminatory, they would only change the terms by which it discriminates. It is not like subsequent to the 'right' for homo's to marry being recognized dudes would be able to marry their toasters or indulge in polygamy. It would remain discrimnatory for the obvious and inescapable reason that state conferred benefits are inherently discriminatory.
The only truly egalitarian position on the state construction that is commonly called marriage is to abolish it and remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Something I wouldn't be hostile to.
1) Part of the majority decision seemed to be based on the argument that CA already has marriage-equivalent civil unions, therefore, there is no inherent civil right being denied by the lack of access to "marriage" (which they seem to be treating as more of a cultural institution rather than a legal one). Of course, the counter argument to that is that, in the USA, "civil unions" are not , in fact, equal to marriage, especially not at a cultural level (and I believe there are still important legal privileges that separate the two if I'm not mistaken).
Regardless, I'm guessing that is how they're arguing that Prop 8 doesn't violate the "equal protection" clause.
2) It may be possible that there could be a never-ending cycle of counter-referenda but I think this is unlikely. If/when gay marriage becomes legal through a ballot measure, the momentum to shift backwards seems unlikely, especially given the costs of mounting such a campaign *again*. I'm not saying it couldn't happen but I think once we cross that threshold, it would take something extraordinary to flip it back. And I think opponents know this.
3) There is supposed to be a national challenge to Prop 8 (see sfgate.com) and this is creating some divisions amongst supporters of gay marriage who are concerned that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8, it will set back the movement for legalization by years since now there will be a SC precedent that trickles down through lower courts.
For real. It's serious "tyranny of the majority" and from my experience, serves the aim of reactionary politics far more than accomplishes anything that could be seen as "progress."
People keep complaining about the courts invalidating ballot initiatives but what do they expect when you have such a flawed legal tool being abused repeatedly? I wish we could pass a ballot initiative to do away with ballot initiatives but somehow, I don't think that would fly.