Prop 8

[rkwright]

The CA Supreme Court heard arguments on Prop 8 today. What do you think?
Do the Gay rights activists have a good case here?

You can read about the arguments here [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/ap_on_...me_sex_marriage[/url]

Personally I think Prop 8 will be upheld, this case was dead on arrival.

[CatherineM]

One of my law school professors once told me that when he was a clerk for a supreme court justice, that he would get handed cases and be told, "this is how I want to rule, find me the support for it." I think that the CA supreme court wants to overturn, and they will find any excuse they can to do so. This is headed to US supreme court no matter which way they decide, so they might as well be popular at home.

[thessalonian]

The proposition got going because of the courts decision. The very fact that they are hearing it shows they want to strike it down and will find a way to do it. I'm not confident.

[eagle_eye222001]

Would like to have confidence that prop 8 will be upheld...

However do any of us realistically think this will happen?

Logically thinking, the court will overturn it because the "rights" already existed.

----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hellogoodbye/track/here+(in+your+arms)"]Hellogoodbye - Here (In Your Arms)[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Didacus]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1798856' date='Mar 6 2009, 10:07 AM']The proposition got going because of the courts decision. The very fact that they are hearing it shows they want to strike it down and will find a way to do it. I'm not confident.[/quote]


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1798862' date='Mar 6 2009, 10:16 AM']Would like to have confidence that prop 8 will be upheld...

However do any of us realistically think this will happen?

Logically thinking, the court will overturn it because the "rights" already existed.

----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hellogoodbye/track/here+(in+your+arms)"]Hellogoodbye - Here (In Your Arms)[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url][/quote]


that is precisely in my line of thought as well. if the courts gave the rights t ostart with, their intent is clear to start. They may not have 'valid' reason to overturn, but they will force the issue and 'justify' its overturning one way or another.

Their conclusion is already reached, they are simply going through the motions.

I believe it will be overturned, unfortunately.


It will go to the supreme US court - eventually. If the activists win there, then the US will be no better than Canada.


Makes me want to start a Cathlic colony somewhere north of Alaska.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1798875' date='Mar 6 2009, 09:42 AM']Makes me want to start a Cathlic colony somewhere north of Alaska.[/quote]













Oh were you serious?

Edited March 6, 2009 by eagle_eye222001

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?" asked Kennard.[/quote]

if the new law is done away with by the court, i would bet it'd be in this regard.
the cali sup court has already i remember said something about gay rights being a right. i don't know if it was statutorily based, or constiutionally. i remember htinking it was an equal rights issues per the constitution.
if that's the case, per stare decisis, in interpretation, the people just enacted an amdendment that contradicts an earlier amendment.

the question then is what to do about that? as rules of construction:
newer laws trump older laws when in conflict.
but, expresser laws trump less express laws when in conflict.
also, courts tend to defer to the people, when it says "this means Y" or say anything, the courts usually are willing to defer to them when it's questionable.

so i guess i'd argue, they should not undo the new provisions, cause the will of the people an express provisoins illustrate what the constitution means, not some random decision. if anything should be undone, it's their past decision, overruled.

Edited March 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

hopefully they're just appeasing the gay rights folks, throwing htem a bone and letting them have their day in the sun.
plus if there is past law on the issue, it's got to be overruled, anyway.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1798875' date='Mar 6 2009, 08:42 AM']It will go to the supreme US court - eventually. If the activists win there, then the US will be no better than Canada.[/quote]
:lolroll:

That cuts me real deep.

At least the Prime Minister is conservative. He's actually a pretty solid guy. Very much voted in line with what we believe, when the issues came up.
Only thing I'm disappointed about is that he didn't try overly hard to reopen those debates. I understand why (minority gov't) but I'd like him to do more.

[img]http://the-vote-wiz.com/CanadaElection/images/Stephen%20Harper.jpg[/img]

Also he apparently likes cats. This was a picture set up by his image people to make him seem less cold and mean. Obviously a little ill-advised...

[img]http://broadcastthis.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/stephen-harper-kitten.jpg[/img]

[Didacus]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1798877' date='Mar 6 2009, 10:45 AM'][snip]
Oh were you serious?[/quote]

The desire is real. My heart says yes, my mind says no, and I'm too lazy to decide between the two.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1798890' date='Mar 6 2009, 11:13 AM']:lolroll:

That cuts me real deep.

At least the Prime Minister is conservative. He's actually a pretty solid guy. Very much voted in line with what we believe, when the issues came up.
Only thing I'm disappointed about is that he didn't try overly hard to reopen those debates. I understand why (minority gov't) but I'd like him to do more.

[img]http://the-vote-wiz.com/CanadaElection/images/Stephen%20Harper.jpg[/img]

Also he apparently likes cats. This was a picture set up by his image people to make him seem less cold and mean. Obviously a little ill-advised...

[img]http://broadcastthis.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/stephen-harper-kitten.jpg[/img][/quote]

ya

But its not like he's a hockey mom or anything.


And the 'attempts' he made towards preserving traditional marriage were pathetic and a betrayal of those who voted for him - MYSELF included. I was only the second time in my life I voted, because I could not, as a Catholic, justify not voting since his position was clearly the most Catholic option, but in the end, I fear he only took the appearance of such Catholicism rather than genuinely represent.

[eagle_eye222001]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15293"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15293[/url]

‘Strong majority’ of California justices against overturning Prop. 8

San Francisco, Calif., Mar 5, 2009 / 09:20 pm (CNA).- The California Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the successful ballot measure which restored the state’s definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. According to one supporter, a “strong majority” of justices are not inclined to overturn the proposition.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, the legal questions center upon whether Proposition 8 violates constitutional separation-of-powers by sidestepping the court’s duty to interpret the constitution and how the approximately 18,000 legal marriages contracted by same-sex couples will be treated if Proposition 8 is upheld.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Equality California, joined by the first lesbian couple to contract a legal same-sex marriage in California, filed a lawsuit immediately after the election to try and overturn Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 was a political response to the California Supreme Court’s June 2008 ruling that same-sex “marriage” was mandated by the state constitution.

Andrew Pugno, the General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, in November called the lawsuit a “frivolous and regrettable” attempt to invalidate the decision of voters.

“These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed,” he said in a Nov. 5 statement.

Speaking of Proposition 8 opponents, he said:

“It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.”

The Proposition 8 proponents arguing in court on Thursday were Dennis Hollingsworth, who is now the state Senate Republican leader, and the Yes on 8 campaign committee represented by attorneys Kenneth Starr and Andrew Pugno.

According to a Thursday press release from Yes on 8 – ProtectMarriage.com, lead attorney Kenneth Starr told the court that the California constitution “has now been amended by the sovereign people who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case.”

“The people have the inalienable right to control their constitution,” he said, speaking for a total of 60 minutes.

“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Describing Proposition 8 as a revision to the state constitution depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution,” argued Starr.

Starr, a former U.S. appellate judge who served as U.S. Solicitor General, attacked such a portrayal as “wildly wrong.”

“Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 – and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California’s history,” he added.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in opposition to the measure. According to the Mercury News, he has said that same-sex “marriage” is a fundamental, inalienable right that should not be revocable by popular vote under any circumstances.

Starr said embracing Brown’s view would be a “revolution… utterly without formalization in the court’s jurisprudence.”

Dozens of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have also been filed by the proposition’s supporters and opponents.

Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, spoke with CNA in a Thursday phone interview about the day’s oral arguments, reporting they went “very well” for Proposition 8 supporters.

“Starr did an extraordinary job presenting our arguments,” he said, saying they saw “great skepticism” from the judges concerning the arguments against Proposition 8.

In Schubert’s view, judging by their comments and questions, “it seems clear that a strong majority [of justices] are very much not inclined to overturn.”

Justices did not appear to focus on the argument about separation of powers, he reported.

However, the fate of the some 18,000 same-sex couples in state-recognized marriages will be “a much tougher decision for them to make.”

“It’s clear that they are struggling what to do with those couples,” he told CNA, adding that there is no question that there is sympathy for them.

Schubert described Attorney General Brown’s argument that Proposition 8 violates same-sex couples’ “liberty rights” as being met with “widespread skepticism” and as a “novel legal argument which has never been raised before.”

Schubert said he thought the justices “resoundingly rejected” that argument.

Asked why the court was revisiting the argument concerning whether the ballot measure was a constitutional revision or a constitutional amendment, Schubert said that that pre-election challenge to Proposition 8 had been dismissed and was not decided on its merits.

“They had the opportunity to throw out Prop. 8, and they declined,” he told CNA.

The argument was being revisited, Schubert thought, because it was opponents’ “last hope” to overturn the measure.

“It’s very much a long shot for them, and it’s clear they’re not going to succeed.”

“They failed at the ballot box and they’re trying to overturn the people’s judgment the only way that they can.”


-----------------

My pessimism still stands. Until they rule, speculation means nothing.

----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hellogoodbye/track/here+(in+your+arms)"]Hellogoodbye - Here (In Your Arms)[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[rkwright]

I realize some are weary... but I really think this will be upheld.

I don't think any state has ever declared a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. In fact I think only a few countries have ever done it. Its something so basic, so fundamental to the structure and balance of power.

What they overturned a few months was simply a law, which was held to be unconstitutional. But how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional - by definition if its in the constitution it is now constitutional.

[rkwright]

BTW is this the same Ken Starr involved in the Monica-Bill stuff? I think it is??

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1798895' date='Mar 6 2009, 09:27 AM']ya

But its not like he's a hockey mom or anything.


And the 'attempts' he made towards preserving traditional marriage were pathetic and a betrayal of those who voted for him - MYSELF included. I was only the second time in my life I voted, because I could not, as a Catholic, justify not voting since his position was clearly the most Catholic option, but in the end, I fear he only took the appearance of such Catholicism rather than genuinely represent.[/quote]
Well he isn't Catholic.

I'm disappointed for sure that he hasn't done more for pro life and pro marriage, but on the other hand, what do you think would happen if his minority government introduced a bill like that? Instant election.

...but now, unfortunately, I don't think there's any hope left. Even if he got a huge majority, popular opinion is far too in favour of these 'rights' to change them.