More Fun on the Prop 8 Front

[RMGuy]

The appeals court looks like it has upheld the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 in California. You can read about it here.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=us_c2

or for those of you that like fair and balanced

Appeals Court Rules California's Same-sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | Fox News

No real surprises.

-RM

[NadiaStar]

I might be the minority here, but I'm kind of glad about it.

[HEthePrimate]

You're not alone, NadiaStar--I'm glad, too! :) But then, I'm a (occasionally) wild-eyed heretic...

[ADoyle90815]

I'm part of the minority that is glad about this decision, as while I'm heterosexual, I'm secure enough in my sexuality to support the right of homosexuals to get married.

[LittleWyvern]

I think, whichever way this ends up, we should all remember this:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

[MarginOfError]

I think, whichever way this ends up, we should all remember this:

Now you're just taking all the fun out of the "More Fun" thread.

[john doe]

Let's try to keep this conversation civil. This topic generally turns ugly quickly, but I believe that if people maintain cool heads and not take potshots at each other we can have a good discussion. The mods will be keeping a close eye on this thread for those who can't play nice with others.

[Vort]

I'm part of the minority that is glad about this decision, as while I'm heterosexual, I'm secure enough in my sexuality to support the right of homosexuals to get married.

So are you suggesting that those who do not support the "right" of homosexuals to "marry" are therefore not secure in their sexuality?

[dahlia]

What is the purpose of putting an issue to the vote, and then having the courts overturn it? The 9th Circuit does this time and time again, and time and time again, it is overturned.

Courts are not to make law, which is what is happening here.

This has nothing to do with whether there should be gay marriage; it has to do with protecting the Constitutional rights of citizens, the voting process, and self government.

[Just_A_Guy]

So are you suggesting that those who do not support the "right" of homosexuals to "marry" are therefore not secure in their sexuality?

That would totally explain my Vort man-crush.

[LittleWyvern]

What is the purpose of putting an issue to the vote, and then having the courts overturn it?

Courts are not to make law, which is what is happening here.

I'm not really observing this. The court judged a law unconstitutional, which is an important function of the judiciary since the Founding. If, instead, we went completely toward the rule of the people and simply let every amendment that passed a majority vote on to the constitution, then even laws which are unconstitutional would be on the constitution, which would defeat the purpose of having a written constitution to begin with. There's no law being made here: on the contrary, the courts overturned a law which, in their opinion, was incompatible with the constitution as presently written.

Note that this theory holds regardless of the bill/amendment/etc. up for a vote, and even holds on the federal level. The Founders trusted nobody with complete power, even the people. We certainly have the right of voting, self government, etc. but without these checks and balances in place, the people would have all power and our government would be unrecognizable. Now, the people of California do have the right to amend out of existence the part of their constitution that the courts felt made this law unconstitutional, and the judiciary wouldn't be able to do anything. The purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the constitution as it stands, and reject any added laws/amendments that are incompatible with it (as a constitution without any self-contradictions is very important for obvious reasons). However, if the people decided to remove something from the constitution, that would be outside the realm of the judiciary and in the realm of the legislative.

[prisonchaplain]

While I understand that the Supreme Court is suppose to uphold the Constitution and shoot down populist mob-rule, it does seem that when its decisions lead to innovation--to societal changes--that they are indeed legislating from the bench. Progressives say that such an approach helped free the slaves, gain voting rights for women and minorities, etc. Perhaps...but let's call it what it is, then. We allow a handful of elite the power to create laws and condemn tradition, because part of us still does not trust democracy and limited government.

[beefche]

I'm no historian, but didn't the allowance of same sex marriage begin because the courts decided to allow it? Then, they put that to the people to vote? I seem to remember the mayor of San Francisco performing same sex marriage when the law forbid it.

So, essentially, this new court ruling is the following: Prop 8 was unconstiutional because people appealed the prior decision of the people to ban it because the court allowed it against the written law? Or some convoluted thing like that?

[annewandering]

I'm no historian, but didn't the allowance of same sex marriage begin because the courts decided to allow it? Then, they put that to the people to vote? I seem to remember the mayor of San Francisco performing same sex marriage when the law forbid it.

So, essentially, this new court ruling is the following: Prop 8 was unconstiutional because people appealed the prior decision of the people to ban it because the court allowed it against the written law? Or some convoluted thing like that?

I think that probably sums it up pretty good!

[annewandering]

I never thought I would EVER say it but for once I am glad we have a very conservative supreme court. At least conservative to give prop 8 a chance.

If we believe in evolution then the 9th court has said that millions of years of evolution are not worth considering which is for sure legislating from the bench and not from the people.

[LittleWyvern]

I'm no historian, but didn't the allowance of same sex marriage begin because the courts decided to allow it? Then, they put that to the people to vote? I seem to remember the mayor of San Francisco performing same sex marriage when the law forbid it.

So, essentially, this new court ruling is the following: Prop 8 was unconstiutional because people appealed the prior decision of the people to ban it because the court allowed it against the written law? Or some convoluted thing like that?

From what I've understood:

• Prior to 1977, the definition of marriage was stated in the california civil code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary"
• On 1977, the legislature (not the judiciary) changed the definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity on whether this code allowed same-sex marriage or not. This section of the civil code then defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary"
• On March 2000, Proposition 22 was put forward. One of the reasoning behind this was another section of the civil code, which stated that "marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state." This was viewed as a loophole by Prop 22 supporters. Prop 22 was meant to add to the civil code the sentence that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
• On May 2008, Proposition 22 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of California, and thus struck from the civil code
• On November 2008, voters passed Proposition 8, meant to overturn the Supreme Court ruling of May 2008.

And the rest of the story is the subject of this thread.

[Just_A_Guy]

This implied notion that same-sex marriage was legally possible in California or any other state before the 1970s is one of the more interesting (and frankly, IMHO, spurious) arguments in the Prop 8 discussion.

[RMGuy]

This implied notion that same-sex marriage was legally possible in California or any other state before the 1970s is one of the more interesting (and frankly, IMHO, spurious) arguments in the Prop 8 discussion.

I guess that depends on if you are more of a "that which is not expressly allowed is forbidden" or a "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed" type of person.

-RM

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

Are you people seriously this oblivious to the other fact that one of the other 3 judges was from the LDS church...HMMM! So is that not the same conflict of interest for the other side of the bias.

If one was gay and one was an adamant denouncer of gay marriage rights, then that evens the playing field and one unbiased person made the decision.

So any one trying to use the one judge was gay as an excuse needs to consider that even if his vote was slanted in one way, it was cancelled out by the LDS judge who slanted his vote in the opposite direction.

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

And doesn't the LDS church think they should be devoting their time and money fighting their own form of inequality?

If gay people can't get married, then mormons have even less chance of being socially accepted in terms of marriage. (And at this point Mormons aren't even accepted much like homosexuals are elsewhere in the world.)

I think the LDS church should be fighting supreme courts to allow plural marriage rights, and not to be persecuted for their beliefs to have plural wivesm (which is illegal, it is not illegal though people to be gay)...You will continue to be persecuted especially when you try to persecute gay marriage rights when you guys have less rights and respect from the outside society in general.

[Guest]

How I adore irony.

[annewandering]

One was LDS and he wrote the single dissenting opinion. By the way for such 'forceful' name about intelligence, it might be well to learn how to spell 'retarded'.

I suspect he is thinking of the FLDS anyway.

[Just_A_Guy]

Judge Smith (the Mormon on the panel) wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent. He agreed with the majority that Judge Walker's decision should stand; he simply disagreed with the reasoning the majority used to arrive at that conclusion. Observers at the oral arguments noted that even Judge Smith seemed unexpectedly harsh with the Prop 8 supporters' attorney (see the Volokh link I posted yesterday).

It may also be worth noting that three or four Mormons in this very thread have expressed support for the decision. Judge Smith's opinion in this case was hardly a foregone conclusion.

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

Haha, It took me awhile to login because i spelled it wrong and kept trying when i typed it the right way lol..

Sorry if I hvae the wrong group and not the FLDS.

But from what I've seen and read about, the LDS were the initiators of Prop 8, and I just don't see that as something that should be occurring. Demanding families to donate large sums to the church to fight the ban of marriage is not something a church should be involved with when they have different fundamental beliefs to the norm as well.

And sorry for the name, I should ahve made it something else, but it was refering to the judges and how one was gay but one was also LDS so anyone complaining that one was gay needs to realize that one other guy was also bias.

[Guest]

In condemning us for "discriminating" against a group of people, you are using a name containing a word that is discriminatory toward another group of people. Anyone not living under a rock ought to know that using "retarted" (sic) as an insult is as appropriate as using "gay" as an insult.

Also, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone here interested in the legalization of polygamy, let alone the desire to live it. Before accusing Latter-day Saints of being (I'll change your word) ignorant, you ought to school yourself a little on what we actually preach, live, and believe.