What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?
What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?
If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?
The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?
Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?
What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37
12. What harm do proponents face if an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 8 is issued?
This Court has already held that Proponents have a “significant protectable
interest in defending Proposition 8” that is not adequately represented by any other party. That
interest would obviously be harmed by an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8.
Additionally, Proponents would be harmed by the issuance of an injunction against the enforcement
of Proposition 8 in their capacities as agents for the People and Government of the State of
California, recognized as such under state law to defend, in lieu of the defendant public officials,
the constitutionality of Proposition 8.See Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48, 69 (Cal. 2009)
(permitting Proponents to intervene to defend Proposition 8 against state constitutional challenge
where Attorney General asserted state constitutional claims against Proposition 8).
When the judge repeatedly asked Cooper what evidence his side had for the argument that barring gay marriage is justified to promote the procreative purpose of traditional marriage, Cooper kept insisting that the premise is self-evident. And that countless courts have found that to be the purpose of traditional marriage. And that millions of Californians backed Prop. 8 to
preserve traditional marriage and the need for couples to bear children.
Where's the evidence? Walker asked.
"You don't have to have evidence of this," Cooper tried to assure him.
The judge tried again.
"Why in this case did you present but one witness on this subject?"
The argument continues.
Well, nothing to do now but cross fingers and hope the prosecution made it's case.
Hopefully the court will make the right decision and overturn proposition 8.
and thus would have needed a 2/3 majority to pass. I don't get why nobody even brought up such an obvious contradiction.A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.
Voters cannot over-ride the rights of any group or individual with any vote.where is the "Did the voters of California make their will specifically known by amending their Constitution, and can it be proven that this Constitutional Amendment is in contradiction to the Federal Constitution" question ? does he even care?
:roll: can we all stop pretending we don't already know what this judge is going to rule... and that we haven't from the beginning.
where is the "Did the voters of California make their will specifically known by amending their Constitution, and can it be proven that this Constitutional Amendment is in contradiction to the Federal Constitution" question ? does he even care?
:roll: can we all stop pretending we don't already know what this judge is going to rule... and that we haven't from the beginning.
Voters cannot over-ride the rights of any group or individual with any vote.
Voters cannot over-ride the rights of any group or individual with any vote.
where is the "Did the voters of California make their will specifically known by amending their Constitution, and can it be proven that this Constitutional Amendment is in contradiction to the Federal Constitution" question ? does he even care?
:roll: can we all stop pretending we don't already know what this judge is going to rule... and that we haven't from the beginning.
This is ridiculous. Our rights are outlined by the constitution, and if enough people vote to do so, the constitution can be changed. Therefore, voters can indeed override the rights of a group or individual with a vote. It doesn't necessarily make it okay, but the ability to do so is quite clear.
it wan't a 'bill'; it was a constitutional amendment. amendments alter intrinsic parts of existing constitutions all the time; and are considered to invalidate those portions of the earlier constitution that they alter. For example, the 18th Amendment was invalidated by the 21st, and the 14th Amendment invalidated the "3/5's Clause"
there is no reason to suppose that that portion of the existint constitution was necessarilty altered. All that was altered were the requirements necessary to recieve a license. Nobody is out there protesting the "intrinsic rights" of 12 year olds or the blind to get driving licenses.
This is ridiculous. Our rights are outlined by the constitution, and if enough people vote to do so, the constitution can be changed. Therefore, voters can indeed override the rights of a group or individual with a vote. It doesn't necessarily make it okay, but the ability to do so is quite clear.
That depends on what you consider a "right". The state overrides things some people would like to have a "right" to all the time.
I would like to have the right to beat the living **** out of people who annoy me. The State has decided that I don't have that right. Oh well, no fun for me... :mrgreen:
The question of whether SSM is a "right" is being addressed Constitutionally in CA by Prop 8, in an attempt to define whether there is a "right" to SSM at all. Right now everyone has a right to a hetero marriage, and no one has a right to a SSM. Apparently most folks like it like that... :mrgreen:
Really? So, neither of you would object if the federal government stopped recognizing ANY marriage at all?This is ridiculous. Our rights are outlined by the constitution, and if enough people vote to do so, the constitution can be changed. Therefore, voters can indeed override the rights of a group or individual with a vote. It doesn't necessarily make it okay, but the ability to do so is quite clear.
Voters cannot over-ride the rights of any group or individual with any vote.
Really? So, neither of you would object if the federal government stopped recognizing ANY marriage at all?
Really? So, neither of you would object if the federal government stopped recognizing ANY marriage at all?
Your statement rests on the argument that the Federal Constitution forbids governments from limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. You're free to make that argument, but it's not had much success as of yet.
I can't speak for them, but that would be absolutely perfect for me.
Let "marriage" remain a private concept and have the government recognize partnerships between consenting adults.
I'd be thrilled. Civil unions for all, leave marriage to the people.
The question of whether SSM is a "right" is being addressed Constitutionally in CA by Prop 8, in an attempt to define whether there is a "right" to SSM at all. Right now everyone has a right to a hetero marriage, and no one has a right to a SSM. Apparently most folks like it like that... :mrgreen:
Really? So, neither of you would object if the federal government stopped recognizing ANY marriage at all?
The Supreme Court has said that: Marriage is the most important relation in life. Now that's being withheld from the plaintiffs. It is the foundation of society. It is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. It's a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights and older than our political parties. One of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause. A right of intimacy to the degree of being sacred. And a liberty right equally available to a person in a homosexual relationship as to heterosexual persons. That's the Lawrence vs. Texas case.
Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy. It is a right possessed by persons of different races, by persons in prison, and by individuals who are delinquent in paying child support. It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. In other words, it is a right belonging to Californians, to persons. It is not a right belonging to the State of California.
I'm not sure where they are going with the argument about enduring natural parent relationships. Are they just completely ignoring modern psychological evidence to the contrary? I mean, every objective social study about same sex parenting has yielded the same results: that two parent, stable partnership households are conducive to healthy children, regardless of the genders of the parents.
If this case were based entirely on scientific grounds, the anti-GM side would lose. But this court case doesn't have much to do with that. They're still harping on the prop 8 vote and for that, I only hope that the judges in charge are rational.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?