More About Prop. 8

[Boxlicker101]

Here is the latest on California's Prop. 8:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14159406?source=rss&nclick_check=1

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Here is the latest on California's Prop. 8:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14159406?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Keep in mind that this is just the first step. Walker will not over-rule Prop 8. What this trial is about is establishing the legal positions. Once it is upheld, probably with reluctance on the judge's part, it will go to a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit. That's when things will have the possibility of change. And of course, the losing side will appeal and demand a hearing before the entire 9th Circuit and the losing side in that will appeal to the USSC. Who knows what will happen there!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Keep in mind that this is just the first step. Walker will not over-rule Prop 8. What this trial is about is establishing the legal positions. Once it is upheld, probably with reluctance on the judge's part, it will go to a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit. That's when things will have the possibility of change. And of course, the losing side will appeal and demand a hearing before the entire 9th Circuit and the losing side in that will appeal to the USSC. Who knows what will happen there!

The Ninth CC is notorious for their extreme liberal, even radical stance, and will probably rule against Prop. 8 and in favor of gay marriage. Who knows what SCOTUS will do.

I'm not really happy about the courts overturning the will of the people but, in this case, I rather hope they do. As far as I am concerned, it's nobody's business if two men or two women want to form the same kind of a marriage contract as a man and a woman can.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The issue is really about the 10th Amendment; that is, does any state or The People have a right to self determination. The States are co-sovereign with the Federal Government.

Can any minority force its will on the majority? And if the Supremes vote to overturn the 10th Amendment they open the door to every combination and permutation of social action. And this is what gays are demanding.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The Ninth CC is notorious for their extreme liberal, even radical stance, and will probably rule against Prop. 8 and in favor of gay marriage. Who knows what SCOTUS will do.

I'm not really happy about the courts overturning the will of the people but, in this case, I rather hope they do. As far as I am concerned, it's nobody's business if two men or two women want to form the same kind of a marriage contract as a man and a woman can.

The Nineth Circuit's reputation rests on a few radical judges who are aging. Most of the more recent appointees are from the Bush (both of them) years or moderates because that was all Clinton could get through the GOP controlled Senate. However, in this case, I'm inclined to agree. I suspect that the feds will overturn Prop 8 but it will be a matter of years.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Ninth CC is notorious for their extreme liberal, even radical stance, and will probably rule against Prop. 8 and in favor of gay marriage. Who knows what SCOTUS will do.

I'm not really happy about the courts overturning the will of the people but, in this case, I rather hope they do. As far as I am concerned, it's nobody's business if two men or two women want to form the same kind of a marriage contract as a man and a woman can.

The thing is, youre opening the door to whatever union any group wants. I bet the Supremes deny Federal jurisdiction. And that is always the 1st question they ask.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

They may well do that. On the other hand, marriage is a legal contract. To deny persons access to that legal contract comes under the heading of interstate commerce where the fed does, indeed, rule all. It's going to be very, very complex. And it's going to take so long that most of the opposition to gay marriage will just die off. People under thirty or even under forty have very few problems with the idea.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The contract aspect is irrelevant unless the ceremony is performed on a vessel or aircraft or train. Recall that Plessy tried the same stunt using a Louisiana train to challenge discrimination, and what he got for his trouble was 70 years of Jim Crow law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

They may well do that. On the other hand, marriage is a legal contract. To deny persons access to that legal contract comes under the heading of interstate commerce where the fed does, indeed, rule all. It's going to be very, very complex. And it's going to take so long that most of the opposition to gay marriage will just die off. People under thirty or even under forty have very few problems with the idea.

I am inclined to agree with you, although I also believe that a campaign to repeal Prop. 8 would have a good chance of winning this year, and an even better chance in 2014. Of course, that would make the court challenge moot.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The contract aspect is irrelevant unless the ceremony is performed on a vessel or aircraft or train. Recall that Plessy tried the same stunt using a Louisiana train to challenge discrimination, and what he got for his trouble was 70 years of Jim Crow law.

Uh, there's been a lot of reinterpretation of the Constitution since then. And it was the Equal Protection provision of the USC that finally overruled Jim Crow. In time it will be the same with gay marriage, but that may be quite a time. Of course, a perfectly viable argument under the First Amendment may well end up validating polygyny and then the Equal Protection clause will force the validation of polyandry. Next thing you know, my dream of the hippy commune will come true--long after I'm dead, of course.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I am inclined to agree with you, although I also believe that a campaign to repeal Prop. 8 would have a good chance of winning this year, and an even better chance in 2014. Of course, that would make the court challenge moot.

I'm telling you now, if the court accepts the case the issue will be whether the State of the People have a right to self determination and WHAT IS THE FEDERAL ISSUE?

If your argument is equal protection the court will want to know why every restriction on marriage isnt a violation of equal protection.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm telling you now, if the court accepts the case the issue will be whether the State of the People have a right to self determination and WHAT IS THE FEDERAL ISSUE?

If your argument is equal protection the court will want to know why every restriction on marriage isnt a violation of equal protection.

That issue was used against interracial marriage, too, remember. It failed then and will eventually fail again. Individual rights trump states' rights and have since 1954. That's a lot of precedent.

The whole concept behind having a Constitution, a very important argument goes, is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Merely having a majority vote puts us back in the days of Greek democracy. The historically aware will know what a disaster that was. Our government is based on laws, not men. That's a Roman argument to counter the Greek experience and it's at the heart of the concept of Republic vs. Democracy.

 

[Liar]

The thing is, youre opening the door to whatever union any group wants.

How is that?

The only thing they have to consider is: Is it OK to have laws that are not gender neutral?

What other type of union could get the nod from a "no" to that question?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That issue was used against interracial marriage, too, remember. It failed then and will eventually fail again. Individual rights trump states' rights and have since 1954. That's a lot of precedent.

The whole concept behind having a Constitution, a very important argument goes, is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Merely having a majority vote puts us back in the days of Greek democracy. The historically aware will know what a disaster that was. Our government is based on laws, not men. That's a Roman argument to counter the Greek experience and it's at the heart of the concept of Republic vs. Democracy.

The majority decides most issues unless youre Al Gore. But who gets to decide what the law is if you dont want the majority deciding?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The majority decides most issues unless youre Al Gore. But who gets to decide what the law is if you dont want the majority deciding?

The law begins with the constitution and with precedent. It continues with legislation. But our system is a tripod, that most stable of shapes. It requires that the courts validate legislation, including referendum, against the constitution. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. We shall see . . .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The law begins with the constitution and with precedent. It continues with legislation. But our system is a tripod, that most stable of shapes. It requires that the courts validate legislation, including referendum, against the constitution. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. We shall see . . .

And we're back to Marbury vs Madison when John Marshall decided that HE gets to decide. It was a most clever coup.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And we're back to Marbury vs Madison when John Marshall decided that HE gets to decide. It was a most clever coup.

Indeed. But the result is the longest running government in the world, barring possibly the UK. Triangles are stabile.

 

[Loring2]

A mess

That issue was used against interracial marriage, too, remember. It failed then and will eventually fail again. Individual rights trump states' rights and have since 1954. That's a lot of precedent.

The whole concept behind having a Constitution, a very important argument goes, is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Merely having a majority vote puts us back in the days of Greek democracy. The historically aware will know what a disaster that was. Our government is based on laws, not men. That's a Roman argument to counter the Greek experience and it's at the heart of the concept of Republic vs. Democracy.

Who knows what the Ninth Circuit Court will do but as you point out in your last sentence, we are a Republic and Not a Democracy. The very word majority has no meaning concerning issues. Only majorities in the congress have meaning on issues.

Califotnia's referendum system technically makes CA a direct democracy even on issues and the state does have sovereignty within its own borders.

A good mess