California's Supreme Court & Gay Marriage: ROUND 2

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do California voters have the power to "overrule" the California Supreme Court on their own historic decision last May legalizing gay marriage?

    Thursday, March 5, 2009, CA's Supreme Court will consider challenges to Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters (by a slim margin) to re-amend the state constitution, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The justices hearing this challenge are the very same justices who declared that gays and lesbians had a "constitutional right to marry" almost 10 months ago.

    So, this time the issue is a bit different: it isn't whether disallowing gays the right to marry is discriminatory. They already heard that case. They decided is was discriminatory. This time it's: can a majority of voters simply eliminate minority rights, specifically gay marriage, that the court has recognized?


    The ruling is due in 90 days.
     
  2. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    the more interesting question, beyond the gay thing, is whether minority rights can be circumscribed by referendum

    the issue of gay marriage, I think, will not be a satisfactory test, unless of course, gays constitute some sort of recognizable minority

    but then if they do, then the issue becomes more muddled in larger terms -- we then have the institutionalization and legitimization of categories


    :popcorn:
     
    #2 B_Nick4444, Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  3. D_Rod Staffinbone

    D_Rod Staffinbone Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. thadjock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,675
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    LA CA USA
    damn, i was gonna go join the protest against those homos but my sacred underpants are in the laundry
    Mormon Underwear
     
  5. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Actually, that's precisely the opposite of "legitimizing categories". "Categories" are legitimized when people are given different rights, not the same rights. The right to marriage, for example.

    More interesting, to me, is whether or not this issue will eventually reach federal supreme courts with the question of whether or not marriage is protected under the right to pursuit of happiness.

    Agreed on the :popcorn:, though.
     
  6. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    Pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Federal Constitution, so it would only work if you were being oppressed by the Monarch of Great Britain. It is in some states' constitutions.

    The way it was reported on NPR today, what the Ca supreme court is now considering is whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision of the state constitution, which must also be first passed by 2/3 of the legislature.
     
    #6 kalipygian, Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  7. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    So very, very wrong.

    You may want to go look up the 14th Amendment. And then recognize that multiple times in the past, those "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence have been protected under the 14th Amendment through Supreme Court decisions.

    Look up Loving v. Virgina, and Cleveland Board of Education v. LeFleur.

    Take Chief Justice Earl Warren's statement in the Loving v. Virgina case:

     
  8. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    I see you are correct regarding the 14th amendment.
     
  9. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,378
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    726
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
  10. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    kalipygian: "The way it was reported on NPR today, what the Ca supreme court is now considering is whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision of the state constitution, which must also be first passed by 2/3 of the legislature."

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


    That's true. This is from the Court's own website:


    In the cases before the court, the court has issued an order listing the following three issues to be briefed and argued:

    (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

    (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

    (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?


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


    If voters can simply come along and "violate the separation of powers" (ie, eliminate minority rights that the court has recognized), then why can't all american voters simply "vote" on federal issues like gun control or abortion ot the separation of church of state... or any issue that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court?

    Why have state or federal Supreme Courts at all? If the voters have the "right" to simply overturn their judgements?


    By the way. The CA Supreme Court said that not allowing gay marriages was unconstitutional. Therefore, what the CA voters passed was a revision, not an "amendment" to the CA Constitution. They saw the Court's gay marriage ruling (an amendment in itself) and wanted to REVISE it.

    If so, proponents of Prop 8 will never get 2/3 of the legislature to agree with them. In fact, they won't even get a simple majority (both the CA Senate and House passed a resolution last week saying that Prop 8, banning gay marriage, was unconstitutional, giving support to opponents of Prop 8 before the oral arguments started in court this week).
     
    #10 D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  11. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    I was dismayed when Prop 8 passed but not unduly upset. It's just a matter of time before courts and country get it right.

    Longer in some places than others, but of time, nonetheless.
     
  12. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    hey, Nick8! I just wanted to "whisper" with you in these barely perceptible grayish tones! Damn, this is fun! It's like we're in our own secret, secluded little cubbyhole!
     
  13. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Pssst. I miss you, buddy. And you know that's not my wrist you're holding, right?
     
    #13 B_Nick8, Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  14. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    ditto, Mister Man (** insert a heartfelt, non-sarcastic smiley face here **)



    I"m sorry. I mean DITTO! -- We're out, we're proud! Out of the shadows and into the light! -- We're here, we're queer!

    (get use to it!)
     
  15. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Touch me in the mo-orning,
    Then don't [sic] walk away...

    :biggrin1:

    Insert puking smiley here.
     
  16. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    If you two keep this up, I'm gonna run over there with a film crew and a year's supply of Gun Oil. :biggrin:
     
  17. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    There's room for more in our cubbyhole, VB. :wink:
     
  18. OCDreamer69

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    427
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Verified:
    Photo
    Awaiting the outcome (even though it could be up to 90 days down the road).
     
  19. OCMuscleJock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,292
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    908
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    I hope they get it right this time...
     
  20. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,378
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    726
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    where do I sign up? :wave: :tongue:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted