California Attorney General now says Prop. 8 should be invalidated

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It was obvious before it was passed it was unconstitutional.

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.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
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.
 

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
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.

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.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
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.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think the ACLU tactically wants to bring the gay marriage issue to the SCOTUS yet.

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.
 

BobLeeSwagger

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
1,455
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I wish I knew more about Californian constitutional law, but what are they hoping for by trying to get the case elevated to SCOTUS?

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.
 

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
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.

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.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
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.

Please read Mark's other thread on the same subject:

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

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Maybe Jason meant the pro- Prop 8 (and anti gay marriage) side had a tactic of taking it to federal court.
 
Last edited:

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Maybe Jason meant the pro- Prop 8 (and anti gay marriage) side had a tactic of taking it to federal court.

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.
 

lipollo

1st Like
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Posts
77
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
153
Location
Sydney, Australia
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
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.
 

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

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.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm bolding some portions here:

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.

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.
 

lipollo

1st Like
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Posts
77
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
153
Location
Sydney, Australia
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
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.