California Attorney General now says Prop. 8 should be invalidated

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MisterMark, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    The state attorney general, who had earlier vowed to defend Prop. 8, offers a novel legal theory for why it should be overturned. The action surprises some legal experts.

    By Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan
    December 20, 2008

    Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

    Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban - Los Angeles Times

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

    It's fascinating to watch every twist and turn in this saga.
     
  2. Penis Aficionado

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Way to go, Governor Moonbeam!
     
  3. SpeedoMike

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,940
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    well... all we can do is wait and see.
     
  4. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    It was obvious before it was passed it was unconstitutional.
     
  5. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I wish I knew more about Californian constitutional law, but what are they hoping for by trying to get the case elevated to SCOTUS? Roberts isn't going to resign any time soon. Scalia is a reasonable 72, Thomas and Alito are under 61.

    That leaves Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer.

    The swing vote in this case would be Souter (a bachelor), and a justice known to side with O'Connor and Kennedy on social issue votes.

    If the Prop 8 crowd want to push their agenda then I don't see any pressure for them to do so. Certainly not as much as the more left leaning members of the court who Obama may well have to replace due to their advanced age.
    I think biding their time and winning as many states as possible pending the next election results would make more sense. If Obama fucks-up then a conservative could take the White House and stand a chance to swing the court more to the right.
     
  6. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    i wish the queens would quit think obama is going to do something for us because he is not. he is already running for his next term in office and that means he has to get middle america's vote. If we want something done we need to get off out collective asses and work toward that goal. that's my rant for the day.
     
  7. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    Well, I don't think many people would accuse the gay population of being too quiet lately. ;)

    I want to see progress too, but I don't think you have to worry about apathy. More than ever, I think we're ready for total equality and won't settle for anything less.
     
  8. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    maybe not much apathy in Ca. but other places i'm not so sure. Not that i want to get married anytime soon but would like the option if it presented it's self.
     
  9. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    I meant the California state Supreme court could be counted on to rule it unconstitutional.

    I don't know about the Federal.

    I don't think the ACLU tactically wants to bring the gay marriage issue to the SCOTUS yet.

    It seems like a gamble for our opposition to do so.
     
    #9 kalipygian, Dec 20, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  10. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    I've read this too. Same-sex proponents don't want this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court at this time because if they lose, it could set back the fight for marriage equality for decades.
     
  11. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Did the article say anything about SCOTUS? Brown is making this argument to the California Supreme Court, which understandably has jurisdiction over state constitutional matters. Gay rights activists have made a point of NOT trying to take the gay marriage to federal court under the assumption that SCOTUS is unlikely to uphold it with its current personnel.
     
  12. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    Thank you. I had the same reaction originally, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, and thought that maybe I didn't read the article correctly.
     
  13. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,376
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    725
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    Please read Mark's other thread on the same subject:

    http://www.lpsg.org/114469-prop-8-sponsors-seek-nullify.html
     
  14. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    Maybe Jason meant the pro- Prop 8 (and anti gay marriage) side had a tactic of taking it to federal court.
     
    #14 kalipygian, Dec 20, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  15. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    That is what I meant. The pro-prop 8 groups seem to want to push this matter to SCOTUS, hoping that the California Supreme Court will invalidate the initiative so they can appeal to Federal Court and, eventually, SCOTUS. They're wagering that now's the time to do it while they have a potential court majority. I'm not sure they do, but that's a different argument.
     
  16. bobabooey69

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,176
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    87
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    FL
    Yeah! Way to go!
     
  17. lipollo

    lipollo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Essentially the whole issue over gay marriage is over the definition of what constitutes marriage.

    Effectively marriage in a religious sense is a binding between a man and a woman. Thus a marriage is sanctioned by the religion and ratified by the State.

    Gay marriage however is sanctioned and ratified the state, and thus transforming the image of what defines marriage.

    It is essentially a political problem grounded in religion. My personal opinion is that as long as 2 Gay people use the word 'marriage' in a religious sense then it should be annuled. However there should be no restrictions placed on two people who would like to live together however it should not be at the expense of religion. A really tough matter.
     
  18. MisterMark

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,090
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    I don't think it's that tough. The states should either allow same-sex couples to marry or simply stop issuing marriage licenses and replace them with civil union licenses for everyone. If a couple wants to be "married", they can do that in a church.

    We're all biased, of course. Being homosexual, I am absolutely biased toward wanting to see marriage equality; heterosexuals are biased in that they have no idea what it feels like to be told that their relationships are worth less than others.
     
  19. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm bolding some portions here:

    I disagree. Why should religion trump society on here? If the Mormon Church decided to glom onto the word bailout the way they've co-opted marriage, should our government start kowtowing to whatever edicts they pronounce about bailouts? When did the church become a fourth branch of government with veto power over the other three?

    Western marriage as a religious institution is a fairly recent development: historically, and especially prior to the Council of Trent, it had been more of a businesslike arrangement intended to provide heirs to an estate. Involving the church in marriage was a money-making strategy for the church, in a time when they were still selling indulgences. Now, churches are trying to declare that they have some ex post facto ownership of the concept of marriage and that governments need to come up with some other, lesser, concept like "civil unions" if they want to avoid violating their made-up sanctity.

    I don't buy it. I support the separation of church and state, but that separation has to apply in both directions: churches have no right to appropriate social constructs for their exclusive use by mere declaration.
     
  20. lipollo

    lipollo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    MisterMark I understand where your comming from but its not a question of your relationship being worthless, because thats false afterall it is the binding of two people. The question is whether it can be appropriated in a religiously sanctioned sense or just a political one which brings me to Mindseye.

    Whilst I understand that the Church shouldnt appropriate scial constructs to their exclusive use, the question is why should gay marriage appropriate their own exlusive want onto religion?

    I think it is wrong to suggest that religion should be adapted in this sense purely for the reasoning of equality because as we know fundamentally all religions are not equal, they all make dinstinctions between US and THEM.

    If a gap can be created between the religious construct and the political construct them as Mike says there should be no reason why it cannot be classified as a civil union because gay people have every right to.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted