California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8.
On one hand, there's some relief that the existing marriages WILL NOT be nullified. And also some relief that the ballot initiative process remains intact, as I think that's a powerful citizens-rights tool and should be preserved.
On the other hand...fuck. That just sucks. However, it will be poetic justice to see it overturned ALSO by ballot initiative in the next election. Let's see what the bigots have to say about "the will of the people" then.
Captain...I sense...great hypocrisy...
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Calif court upholds Prop 8...sorta
Calif court upholds Prop 8...sortaFollow
Quote:
However, it will be poetic justice to see it overturned ALSO by ballot initiative in the next election. Let's see what the bigots have to say about "the will of the people" then.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
How odd. I mean, their decision was "Hey, that's what the Constitution says now, we need to uphold it." But how are previous gay marriages allowed? The Constitution now apparently says "NO GAY MARRIAGE ALLOWED!" so the current ones are unconstitutional. It makes very little sense to me that the court would allow those 18,000 to stay legal.
Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
However, it will be poetic justice to see it overturned ALSO by ballot initiative in the next election. Let's see what the bigots have to say about "the will of the people" then.
I'm guessing Ambrya assumes that in the next election season the gay rights movement will actually muster an effective campaign. Hate to say it, but they got their asses handed to them by the church groups backing Prop 8. No matter where you stand on the issue, the church groups did a great job obscuring the issue, outright lying, and setting up an effective campaign against gay marriage. Without a sound defense or counter-attack to their campaign, the gay rights groups failed.
Hopefully next time it will be different. Kinda reminds me of an initiative down here in Gainesville, where church groups were trying to make "women's bathrooms for women only!" It was actually started because transgendered folks were using women's bathrooms and it made some folks uncomfortable that the ladies didn't need to sit down to do their business. The proposition also included other anti-LGBT actions from what I heard. Alas, I wasn't registered to vote, but I did see the posters saying "women's bathrooms for women only!" and thought to myself "Huh, that sounds funny." I heard some outrage against the plan from some people on campus, but never read anything against it, never saw protests.
LockeColeMA wrote:
How odd. I mean, their decision was "Hey, that's what the Constitution says now, we need to uphold it." But how are previous gay marriages allowed? The Constitution now apparently says "NO GAY MARRIAGE ALLOWED!" so the current ones are unconstitutional. It makes very little sense to me that the court would allow those 18,000 to stay legal.
It's the California Supreme Court. Politics ends out having more influence on their decisions than it should.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
True. So we end up with this weird fish-fowl hybrid decision. This can't stand; eventually it'll get challenged again in both the political and legal arenas.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
How odd. I mean, their decision was "Hey, that's what the Constitution says now, we need to uphold it." But how are previous gay marriages allowed? The Constitution now apparently says "NO GAY MARRIAGE ALLOWED!" so the current ones are unconstitutional. It makes very little sense to me that the court would allow those 18,000 to stay legal.
It's the California Supreme Court. Politics ends out having more influence on their decisions than it should.
Samira wrote:
True. So we end up with this weird fish-fowl hybrid decision. This can't stand; eventually it'll get challenged again in both the political and legal arenas.
Which, if I may put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, is almost certainly one of the reasons they reached that decision. By doing this, they create a discrepancy between the law and reality, presenting yet another opportunity for another ruling or challenge down the line.
As to the legitimacy of voiding those contracts, I can't think of a more appropriate situation than when the voters pass a law mandating a restriction on said contracts, one judge decides he doesn't agree, and then decides against a motion to wait to allow contracts in direct violation with standing law until after an amendment measure can be voted on. It was an obnoxious set of decisions which should never have happened, and which pretty clearly (gonna put the hat on again) were made purely so that if the amendment passed, we'd have these marriages in an odd limbo state. It's a pretty darn dishonest tactic. Essentially creating a legal problem purely to perpetuate an agenda that the voters have consistently disagreed with.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Scholar
28 posts
This has, "Heading to the US Supreme court", written all over it.
publiusvarus wrote:
Mindel,
Good faith? Is that what you call it. These people ran to the nearest courthouse as fast as possible with the sole purpose of ignoring the will of the people.
Quote:
and these marriages were entered in good faith and were legal at the time.
Good faith? Is that what you call it. These people ran to the nearest courthouse as fast as possible with the sole purpose of ignoring the will of the people.
DFetch wrote:
This has, "Heading to the US Supreme court", written all over it.
Ehhhh, not on the grounds on which it was challenged.
Edited to add quote.
Edited, May 26th 2009 2:57pm by Samira
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
DFetch wrote:
This has, "Heading to the US Supreme court", written all over it.
publiusvarus wrote:
Mindel,
Good faith? Is that what you call it. These people ran to the nearest courthouse as fast as possible with the sole purpose of ignoring the will of the people.
Quote:
and these marriages were entered in good faith and were legal at the time.
Good faith? Is that what you call it. These people ran to the nearest courthouse as fast as possible with the sole purpose of ignoring the will of the people.
Does this mean that every contract that anyone enters into has to be voted on by "the people," or risk being declared illegal?
publiusvarus wrote:
Mindel,
Good faith? Is that what you call it. These people ran to the nearest courthouse as fast as possible with the sole purpose of ignoring the will of the people.
Quote:
and these marriages were entered in good faith and were legal at the time.
Good faith? Is that what you call it. These people ran to the nearest courthouse as fast as possible with the sole purpose of ignoring the will of the people.
Quote:
GOOD FAITH - Honestly and without deception. An agreement might be declared invalid if one of the parties entered with the intention of defrauded the other.
The duty of each party to an agreement (and all officers, employees, or agents of each party) to act in a fair and equitable manner toward each other so as to guarantee each party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other.
The duty of each party to an agreement (and all officers, employees, or agents of each party) to act in a fair and equitable manner toward each other so as to guarantee each party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other.
Yes, in good faith. Learn what the law is.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Yes, in good faith. Learn what the law is.
Do you have any idea who you're talking to?
I'm having a sad. 
The majority should never be able to take away the rights of the minority.
The majority should never be able to take away the rights of the minority.
Kaelesh wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Yes, in good faith. Learn what the law is.
Do you have any idea who you're talking to?
But of course! He keeps me sharp. Showing how Varrus is wrong lets me keep my search skills sharpened.
Gbaji wrote:
By doing this, they create a discrepancy between the law and reality, presenting yet another opportunity for another ruling or challenge down the line.
As to the legitimacy of voiding those contracts, I can't think of a more appropriate situation than when the voters pass a law mandating a restriction on said contracts, one judge decides he doesn't agree, and then decides against a motion to wait to allow contracts in direct violation with standing law until after an amendment measure can be voted on. It was an obnoxious set of decisions which should never have happened, and which pretty clearly (gonna put the hat on again) were made purely so that if the amendment passed, we'd have these marriages in an odd limbo state. It's a pretty darn dishonest tactic. Essentially creating a legal problem purely to perpetuate an agenda that the voters have consistently disagreed with.
As to the legitimacy of voiding those contracts, I can't think of a more appropriate situation than when the voters pass a law mandating a restriction on said contracts, one judge decides he doesn't agree, and then decides against a motion to wait to allow contracts in direct violation with standing law until after an amendment measure can be voted on. It was an obnoxious set of decisions which should never have happened, and which pretty clearly (gonna put the hat on again) were made purely so that if the amendment passed, we'd have these marriages in an odd limbo state. It's a pretty darn dishonest tactic. Essentially creating a legal problem purely to perpetuate an agenda that the voters have consistently disagreed with.
*********
There's no discrepancy. The law is full of "grandfather" clauses. The Court simply limited the effect of this amendment to apply prospectively and not retroactively. Solid jurisprudence.
Ahkuraj wrote:
There's no discrepancy. The law is full of "grandfather" clauses. The Court simply limited the effect of this amendment to apply prospectively and not retroactively. Solid jurisprudence.
And if gay couples had been able to legally marry in California for all of history until November of last year, you'd have a point. But that wasn't the case, so you don't.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
LockeColeMA wrote:
Yes, in good faith. Learn what the law is.
To be fair, I don't blame the gay couples who ran out to get married while they could. I blame the judges who made that awful decision. Their decision was clearly not in "good faith". They knew the issue before them would be resolved one way or another within about 6 months. Given that gay couples had never been able to legally obtain marriage licenses for the entire history of the state prior to that point, I don't think waiting that length of time represented any undue burden on anyone.
The *only* reason to allow gay marriages to go forward during that time period was on the assumption that prop8 would pass and those people wouldn't be able to get marriage licenses after that point in time. Which means that the judge(s) deliberately chose to take an action designed to oppose the law and ensure the exact state of marriage limbo those 18,000 people are in right now. That's certainly a decision that was dishonest in intent and no judge should have made it.
Oh. And it just happens to create the next round of "double standard" challenges to the existing law. Cause it's wrong that gay couples who were married during that time period are allowed to remain married, but gay couples who didn't can't, right? Expect to see this argument "soon".
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And it just happens to create the next round of "double standard" challenges to the existing law. Cause it's wrong that gay couples who were married during that time period are allowed to remain married, but gay couples who didn't can't, right? Expect to see this argument "soon".
Maybe they'll win that one, and marriages will abound!
Belkira,
Do you know what the words "good faith" mean? People using the courts to overtly subvert the will of the people would hardly fall into this category.
Quote:
Does this mean that every contract that anyone enters into has to be voted on by "the people," or risk being declared illegal?
Do you know what the words "good faith" mean? People using the courts to overtly subvert the will of the people would hardly fall into this category.
publiusvarus wrote:
Belkira,
Do you know what the words "good faith" mean? People using the courts to overtly subvert the will of the people would hardly fall into this category.
Quote:
Does this mean that every contract that anyone enters into has to be voted on by "the people," or risk being declared illegal?
Do you know what the words "good faith" mean? People using the courts to overtly subvert the will of the people would hardly fall into this category.
I guess we should bring back slavery, then, since it wasn't overturned in good faith.
Edited, May 26th 2009 3:52pm by Belkira
publiusvarus wrote:
Belkira,
Do you know what the words "good faith" mean? People using the courts to overtly subvert the will of the people would hardly fall into this category.
Quote:
Does this mean that every contract that anyone enters into has to be voted on by "the people," or risk being declared illegal?
Do you know what the words "good faith" mean? People using the courts to overtly subvert the will of the people would hardly fall into this category.
Do YOU? I posted the definition. It has to do with defrauding. These marriages were entered into without any intent to defraud. I mean, unless some gay man was marrying an illegal immigrant who was actually just using him to get citizenship. But no, as soon as the courts allowed gay marriage, all of those marriages were in good faith. "Using the courts" is not acting "not in good faith." It's following the laws of the land. The married gays of California were all married in good faith... and you saying otherwise is simply twisting the legal definition out of what it actually is.
Recent Visitors: 301
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (301)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Calif court upholds Prop 8...sorta
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC