Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

[Redress]

There's some uncertainty about whether the prop 8 backers would have standing to appeal the suit. If the state were forced to bring the appeal, it would ensure that the case moved on.

OK, yeah, I knew that. Duh, sorry, had a brain fart.

 

[Harshaw]

I think that part about going to war is already in the contract even during peace time.

As is the process for amending a constitution.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.

They could say - "I didn't swear to defend that homophobic, misguided thing..."

Can you say Loophole?

No, they swore to defend that Constitution knowing full well that it can be amended while they're in office.

If they decide a new clause is indefensible, their only honorable choice is to resign.

Since they'e politicians, and hence entirely without honor, they won't resign.

 

[Chappy]

The article says the federal appeals court will hear the case in December.

There's some uncertainty about whether the prop 8 backers would have standing to appeal the suit. If the state were forced to bring the appeal, it would ensure that the case moved on.

Exactly; if the state doesn't appeal the ruling then it may turn out that no one else has standing to move this decision further in the court system. Were that to be the outcome both sides in the case would be foiled to some extent, but, at least, California would once again provide liberty and justice for all.

Excerpted from “How 1997 ruling might thwart Prop. 8 appeal” By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle, August 18, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which will hear arguments in December on a federal judge's ruling that overturned Proposition 8, has asked both sides to address the question of whether the campaign committee for the November 2008 initiative has legal standing - the right to represent the state's interests in upholding one of its laws.

 

[Singularity]

If I were against gay marriage, I would do everything in my power to keep this from going to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty much a guarantee that Prop 8 would be struck down given the nature of this case. Literally, the 14th Amendment states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

There is no way to twist the meaning of that section. No state can enforce any law which abridges the privileges of U.S citizens, and since most gay marriage opponents believe marriage to be a privilege and not a right, then there you have it.

Seems pretty open and shut to me.

 

[Harshaw]

If I were against gay marriage, I would do everything in my power to keep this from going to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty much a guarantee that Prop 8 would be struck down given the nature of this case. Literally, the 14th Amendment states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

There is no way to twist the meaning of that section. No state can enforce any law which abridges the privileges of U.S citizens, and since most gay marriage opponents believe marriage to be a privilege and not a right, then there you have it.

Seems pretty open and shut to me.

There's a great deal more to it than that, as has been hashed out in many other threads.

 

[hazlnut]

"When I joined the military and swore to defend the country as directed, we were at peace. Now the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor and they're telling me I have to go fight at war. We weren't at war when I signed my contract, so that means I get to go home, right?"

False analogy.

 

[RightinNYC]

False analogy.

Oh, well if you say so.

 

[digsbe]

Where in the Constitution does it specifically state gay marriage as a privilege? The law of marriage says one man and one wife (male and female). Altering it to fit another definition is illogical (like calling all watermelon cantaloupe). If I remember correctly a federal judge ruled DOMA unconstitutional because states have the rights to define marriage, and in MA gay marriage is legal... It seems we have a conflict.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

There's a great deal more to it than that, as has been hashed out in many other threads.

Yes there is.

Since Prop 8 is dead, or soon will be, the following will happen:

People of all sorts will come to San Fransissyco and other tourist destinations in California and get married. Many will be married by a Justice of the Peace, and will then go to their home state and register a public act duly recorded as part of a judicial proceeding in California.

And what does Article IV, Section I say about how each state shall treat the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State?

Why the Constitution says EACH state must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the others.

So, a legally married couple in California is also a legally married couple in Kansas.

And THAT is going to go STRAIGHT to the Supreme Court, most likely in time to entertain the nation for the 2012 election.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Where in the Constitution does it specifically state gay marriage as a privilege? The law of marriage says one man and one wife (male and female). Altering it to fit another definition is illogical (like calling all watermelon cantaloupe). If I remember correctly a federal judge ruled DOMA unconstitutional because states have the rights to define marriage, and in MA gay marriage is legal... It seems we have a conflict.

Marriage is a right reserved to the people, see Amendment IX.

 

[digsbe]

Marriage is a right reserved to the people, see Amendment IX.

And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.

 

[winston53660]

And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.

They have it is called same sex marriage.

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Singularity]

There's a great deal more to it than that, as has been hashed out in many other threads.

'Hashed out' in threads on an internet message board is one thing; in a court of law, quite another. If you are against gay marriage, you should probably chalk California up to a loss and hope that this case goes no further.

Of course, it's inevitable that gay marriage will soon be the law of the land, so i'm not sure what could be done to stop it.

 

[Singularity]

And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.

Wrong. The definition of marriage is what homosexuals are seeking to change, to make it more inclusive to them. And given that there is no ironclad reason to exclude same sex couples from the privilege given the wording of the 14th Amendment, the only advice I can give you is to get used to it. Of course, you still have the 'wing and a prayer' option, meaning that the issue will hopefully die and the SCOTUS will not pick it up. While I would like to see gay marriage the law of the land, I understand that you don't. If I were to sympathize with you, then i'd hope that the Supreme Court ignores it entirely.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.

The Constitution neglects to define marriage. Certainly a mere oversight in that they never imagined that fairies would demand equal liberties, right?

That's all beside the point. The First Amendment says Congress is not allowed to force your religious prejudices on others.

And that is the whole point.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

They have it is called same sex marriage.

So, you're going to use adulterated dictionary entries to protest the adulteration of that exact same word?

In the 1970's they printed dictionaries on this stuff called paper, and the problem with paper dictionaries is that the words printed on the page can't be changed.

My dictionary says for marriage is:

1) the state of being married; relation between husband and wife, married life wedlock, matrimony.
2) the act of marrying; wedding
3) the rite or form used in marrying
4) any close or intimate union.
5) in pinochle, the king and queen of one suit.
(Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1976)

I'll note that four does not make any mention of the sex of either party, and that number five specifically requires a queen.

You're using a source that peculiarly specifies the distinction of the sexes. When was that work published? Also, why did you neglect to incude the third usage of the word in your own reference?

": an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>", which, btw, still has a deliberately misleadng example.

Furthermore, explain why the freedom of individuals should be held hostage to your desire to maintain your version of a particular dictionary entry.

 

[winston53660]

So, you're going to use adulterated dictionary entries to protest the adulteration of that exact same word?

In the 1970's they printed dictionaries on this stuff called paper, and the problem with paper dictionaries is that the words printed on the page can't be changed.

My dictionary says for marriage is:

1) the state of being married; relation between husband and wife, married life wedlock, matrimony.
2) the act of marrying; wedding
3) the rite or form used in marrying
4) any close or intimate union.
5) in pinochle, the king and queen of one suit.
(Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1976)

I'll note that four does not make any mention of the sex of either party, and that number five specifically requires a queen.

You're using a source that peculiarly specifies the distinction of the sexes. When was that work published? Also, why did you neglect to incude the third usage of the word in your own reference?

": an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>", which, btw, still has a deliberately misleadng example.

Furthermore, explain why the freedom of individuals should be held hostage to your desire to maintain your version of a particular dictionary entry.

Over time the meaning of words change and lexicographers understand this. Heck at one time gay use to just mean happy.

 

[RightinNYC]

Over time the meaning of words change and lexicographers understand this. Heck at one time gay use to just mean happy.

Imagine that the framers wanted everyone to celebrate on the 4th of July, so they included a clause in the constitution demanding that everyone "get together and be gay." Would that mean that the constitution requires every guy to play hide the salami each year?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Over time the meaning of words change and lexicographers understand this. Heck at one time gay use to just mean happy.

Yes.

The meanings of words change.

Which makes it even more pointless to deny basic human freedoms in defense of a stupid word.

The novel "Finley Wren", by Philip Wylie, 1932 (or 1933, my copy is an original, old and fragile, and I'm not digging it out just to check the copyright date) uses the word "gay" to directly describe homosexuals as the word to imply they were in fact homosexuals.

That was almost 80 years ago, and clearly the word's usage in that context was common even then.

So, precisely when did the word "gay" not mean "queer"?

 

[winston53660]

Imagine that the framers wanted everyone to celebrate on the 4th of July, so they included a clause in the constitution demanding that everyone "get together and be gay." Would that mean that the constitution requires every guy to play hide the salami each year?

I guess one would have to be educated enough to understand etymology to some extent. That still does not change the meaning of the word "gay" in contemporary society.

 

[winston53660]

Yes.

The meanings of words change.

Which makes it even more pointless to deny basic human freedoms in defense of a stupid word.

The novel "Finley Wren", by Philip Wylie, 1932 (or 1933, my copy is an original, old and fragile, and I'm not digging it out just to check the copyright date) uses the word "gay" to directly describe homosexuals as the word to imply they were in fact homosexuals.

That was almost 80 years ago, and clearly the word's usage in that context was common even then.

So, precisely when did the word "gay" not mean "queer"?

I would say gay and queer are synonymous now. Although queer might have a bit more derogatory connotation now.

FYI I fully support gay marriage.

 

[RightinNYC]

I guess one would have to be educated enough to understand etymology to some extent. That still does not change the meaning of the word "gay" in contemporary society.

I don't think anyone's arguing about what "gay" or "marriage" mean in contemporary society. My understanding of this whole line of argument is that it focuses on what those words mean in the past.

 

[winston53660]

I don't think anyone's arguing about what "gay" or "marriage" mean in contemporary society. My understanding of this whole line of argument is that it focuses on what those words mean in the past.

And I thought it was about how marriage is changing.

To take it a step further I was thinking nothing is cast in stone like the anti gay marriage people want marriage set in. So I brought up the denotation of marriage as it is now in MW.

 

[hazlnut]

Imagine that the framers wanted everyone to celebrate on the 4th of July, so they included a clause in the constitution demanding that everyone "get together and be gay." Would that mean that the constitution requires every guy to play hide the salami each year?

Nice, homophobic remark.