Cali supreme court overturning Prop 8?

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

If they overturn prop 8, they government will have overturned the voting power of the majority of the citizens.

If they do not overrturn prop 8, "civil rights" people will freak out as their options pretty much run dry.

Do you think there will be riots?

Good. In all cases? no, but you're generalizing, so shall I.

Read this as to WHY i think it's good and why prop 8 was bad news.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1114/p09s01-coop.html

civil rights have a progression. Do you honestly think that had it been put to a majority vote in 1964, the integration of public schools and the "separate but equal" doctrine would have been voted down by the majority of the public? HONESTLY? Brown vs. Board of Education was a landmark case because it "overturned the voting power of the majority". the sky didn't fall, and we're a better place and "separate but equal" is viewed as ridiculous by the vast majority of people today.

all the "marriage" vs. "domestic partnership" argument is now is "separate but equal" packaged up in different terminology. Unless CA changes every single law that mentions "marriage", "married", or "spouse" then there is no equality under those laws for these people.

If you don't think a greedy insurance company won't capitalize on this difference of language, you're living under a rock.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you think there will be riots?

Depends on the decision.

Put yourself in a Californian's shoes. If someone showed up on your doorstep and said "we've from the government, and we are going to forcibly divorce you from your wife, divide up your assets and assign custody of your children" would you just go along with them?

[happythoughts 0]

For years, nobody has given a crap about the right of the individual states to legislate.

States are allowed to pass trivial laws (as long as it
doesn't cost a corporation some money).

Interest groups cannot afford to pay lawyers to promote
legislation in all the states. The process would be too
expensive.

So, they can pass it in one state, and then go to the
SC and get the ruling mandated at a Fed level.

Or, they can just challenge the existing statute in a
single state and then go to the SC.

Remember, the Fed govt keeps a good portion of
your tax dollars to control you. Your state won't get
most of its education or road funding, if they don't mind.

States rights have not been effective for years.

The Golden Rule - "Whoever has the gold, rules".

[SimonBones 1]

I disagree that Prop 8 is comparable to "separate but equal" at all. In order for that to be the case, the system would have to say that all hetero couples can only be married and all homo couples can only have civil unions.

If people would simply give support to the idea of civil unions instead of immediately writing it off as not good enough, then we could have a system where both hetero and homo couples can have non-marriage civil unions that have no less legal stance than marriage. Then, all the religious types can have their way too by keeping the word "marriage" within the sanctity of their silly religions. That would be a win/win situation.

If you force the "marriage" issue on the religious types by coming up with these "civil rights" claims, you create a win/lose situation.

The majority of CA voters have spoken. They don't want to lose their religious word. Nobody is trying to deny homosexuals of civil rights. The Prop8 types want to deny the homosexuals from imposing themselves on their religions. Regardless of whether or not you believe in all that Christianity stuff, their book clearly opposes homosexuality and they, as a free group of people, have the right to make their own club, with their own rules, and deny whoever the hell they want from joining it. If the majority of voters had voted to allow gay "marriage", then you've simply done the opposite and used the majority vote to remove the rights of the minority to have their own private club with their own private rules. Win/lose situation.

How would you feel if you created a "skydivers only hangout club" that would only allow skydivers to be members of, but then the government stormed in and told you that you're not allowed to bar whuffos from joining because they want to out-vote you? Your "skydivers only hangout club" can not define 'skydiver' against people who've never/won't jump from a plane. Therefor you must let in any whuffo who wants to join, AND give them the title of skydiver. Otherwise, you're trying to push a 'separate but equal' agenda.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I disagree that Prop 8 is comparable to "separate but equal" at all. In order for that to be the case, the system would have to say that all hetero couples can only be married and all homo couples can only have civil unions.

If people would simply give support to the idea of civil unions instead of immediately writing it off as not good enough, then we could have a system where both hetero and homo couples can have non-marriage civil unions that have no less legal stance than marriage. Then, all the religious types can have their way too by keeping the word "marriage" within the sanctity of their silly religions. That would be a win/win situation.

If you force the "marriage" issue on the religious types by coming up with these "civil rights" claims, you create a win/lose situation.

The majority of CA voters have spoken. They don't want to lose their religious word. Nobody is trying to deny homosexuals of civil rights. The Prop8 types want to deny the homosexuals from imposing themselves on their religions. Regardless of whether or not you believe in all that Christianity stuff, their book clearly opposes homosexuality and they, as a free group of people, have the right to make their own club, with their own rules, and deny whoever the hell they want from joining it. If the majority of voters had voted to allow gay "marriage", then you've simply done the opposite and used the majority vote to remove the rights of the minority to have their own private club with their own private rules. Win/lose situation.

How would you feel if you created a "skydivers only hangout club" that would only allow skydivers to be members of, but then the government stormed in and told you that you're not allowed to bar whuffos from joining because they want to out-vote you? Your "skydivers only hangout club" can not define 'skydiver' against people who've never/won't jump from a plane. Therefor you must let in any whuffo who wants to join, AND give them the title of skydiver. Otherwise, you're trying to push a 'separate but equal' agenda.

What i'm saying that you are also saying is that civil unions are fine. What i'm saying that you seem to overlook is also that CURRENTLY, there ARE laws in California that ONLY apply to "married" couples. as in, the term "married" is in the law, NOT the term "civil union".

So the easier and more practical solution is allow gays to use the word "marriage". That way they are also covered under the laws that require "marriage".

Or you can try to get the legislature to completely strike the word "marriage" from all of it's laws. Honestly, i think this is the best solution, but realistically, i don't think it will happen. it's probably a logistical nightmare.

I don't think anyone is writing off civil unions as being not good enough. What i'm saying is RIGHT NOW, they are not considered "marriages" by many many laws in california. So if you consider it in those terms, yeah, civil unions aren't good enough...yet. Thus any rights afforded by laws which use the terms "marriage", "married", or "spouse" could next be on the challenge block by people who want to take rights away from people who are different than them.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[billvon 3,120]

> Nobody is trying to deny homosexuals of civil rights.

Effectively they are doing just that, since marriage is not the equivalent of civil unions.

As you mention, both straight and gay couples can form civil unions. Only straight couples can be married. This is a limitation on their rights.

If the courts decide that gay couples can form a civil union that has all the rights of anyone who is married, then I would agree that they are equivalent. That is not the case, and thus the decision now is whether to deny homosexuals rights that heterosexuals have.

>How would you feel if you created a "skydivers only hangout club"
>that would only allow skydivers to be members of, but then the
>government stormed in and told you that you're not allowed to bar
>whuffos from joining because they want to out-vote you?

If it's a private club, tough titties. They can start their own.

If you try to pass a law that says no one else can form a skydiving club, you bet your ass you're going to get some angry skydivers asking what gives you the right to deny them what you have.

Let's take the alternative. I form a "Californians Skydiving Club," and only allow RW types to join. Then I get a law passed that said, basically, only California Skydiving Club members can skydive (for historical reasons.) I pour enough money into it to ensure its passage, and it becomes the law of the land.

Would you be OK with that? After all, you can still paraglide, and it's basically the same thing.

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

If you try to pass a law that says no one else can form a skydiving club, you bet your ass you're going to get some angry skydivers asking what gives you the right to deny them what you have.

Let's take the alternative. I form a "Californians Skydiving Club," and only allow RW types to join. Then I get a law passed that said, basically, only California Skydiving Club members can skydive (for historical reasons.) I pour enough money into it to ensure its passage, and it becomes the law of the land.

Would you be OK with that? After all, you can still paraglide, and it's basically the same thing.

BikerBabe, let me summarize your argument:

I understand/respect the goal to work towards a WIN/WIN situation, but in its current under developed form, it's not perfect yet. Therefor we need to screw the 52% to appease the 47% and create a win/lose situation NOW. This can not wait some months to work towards a win/win situation, screw the rights of the majority here and now.

Bill, your spin on my analogy is horribly inaccurate.

I compare the conflict in a right to a title i.e. skydiver vs whuffo; parallel to the title of marriage vs civil union.

You compare the right for a skydiver to do skydiver things i.e. make a skydive; parallel to a homosexual doing homosexual things (whatever those may be, like being a homosexual or whatever).

Nobody is barring homosexuals from being homosexuals or doing homosexually related things. There are in conflict over the right to a title.

Fail. Nice try though. Good night

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[billvon 3,120]

>Therefor we need to screw the 52% to appease the 47% and create a
>win/lose situation NOW.

In 1967, the Supreme Court decided to screw most of the country to make a win/lose situation THEN, and allow blacks to marry whites. I am very glad they did.

>You compare the right for a skydiver to do skydiver things i.e. make
>a skydive; parallel to a homosexual doing homosexual things (whatever
>those may be, like being a homosexual or whatever).

Not at all! I am simply describing a scenario where no one can SAY they are a skydiver unless they are in our club. You can do skydiver things - wear a closing pin necklace, freefall by doing a BASE jump, fly a wing by paragliding, drink beer around a fire. You can do (individually) every single thing a skydiver does. You just can't call yourself one.

(It's not my fault, of course, that the federal government uses the same definition, and thus you can't jump out of an airplane. They'll change that soon, I am sure. In the meantime, just be content that you're allowed to still BASE jump!)

>Nobody is barring homosexuals from being homosexuals or doing
>homosexually related things.

Exactly. And no one would be barring you from doing skydiving related things. You just wouldn't be a skydiver. It's just a title - right?

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

I see your arguments. I think my argument was summarized quite nicely today by Justice George:

"It seems what you are saying is, it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution...Maybe the solution has to be a political one."

Perhaps I should refer to my other posts - this is a political question.

But AGAIN I must note - the civil rights matters you mention wer ebased upon the Constitution. I.e., the Constitution doesn't allow it.

When the Constitution , however, says, "Same sex marriage isn't allowed" it impossible to find a reasonable interpretation that the Constitutuon doesn't say it.

Quote

In 1967, the Supreme Court decided to screw most of the country to make a win/lose situation THEN, and allow blacks to marry whites. I am very glad they did.

Shall I opine that I read this to mean that you are infuriated that the Court would do such a thing? If you want the Court to ignore a Constitution, that you are infuriated with the allowance of interracial marriage will be a valid interpretation of your quote.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>When the Constitution , however, says, "Same sex marriage isn't
>allowed" it impossible to find a reasonable interpretation that the
>Constitutuon doesn't say it.

I agree! Just as it is impossible to find a reasonable interpretation of the original Constitution that says that an escaped slave may be freed, instead of being returned to its owner. Indeed, changing that particular nugget set off a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands; a great many people did NOT want that changed (among other things.)

(And no, I am not saying that anything like that will be required today for such a change.)

>Shall I opine that I read this to mean that you are infuriated that
>the Court would do such a thing?

No. I am glad the courts ignored "the will of the people" in 1967 (and indeed the opinions of the lower courts) and decided in favor of increasing, rather than decreasing, the rights of the people in the US.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I agree! Just as it is impossible to find a reasonable interpretation of the original Constitution that says that an escaped slave may be freed, instead of being returned to its owner. Indeed, changing that particular nugget set off a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands; a great many people did NOT want that changed (among other things.)

But the majority DID want it changed and the minority had to suck it up. The minority did not fight it in court by arguing, "The genius of our founding fathers means that this Constitution is static. We have the right to property, and now our property rights have been taken away! This is an abomination to the intent of our fathers, and we want our rights restored. It's unconstitutional!"

Quote

I am glad the courts ignored "the will of the people" in 1967 (and indeed the opinions of the lower courts) and decided in favor of increasing, rather than decreasing, the rights of the people in the US.

And I am glad that the Courts ignore the "will of the people" when it comes to statutes. For example, I was GLAD that the court ignored the will of the people last year when it allowed gay marriage, because the ban violated that California Constitution.

The California Constitution IS easy to amend. Too easy. The will of the people is needed to change that. I sure hope the court doesn't deem itself as the voice of the people.

As I stated, ban on interracial marriage violated the Constitution. The ban on same sex marriage vilated the Constitution. Then the Constitution was amended to allow this ban.

Income taxes violated the Federal Constitution. The SCOTUS said so. SO the Constitution was amended to explicitly allow it. Say "bye bye" to constitutuonal arguments about it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>But the majority DID want it changed and the minority had to suck it up.

?? Uh, no. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not supported by the majority of the USA. Indeed, it led to a pretty big war, and he had to kill a lot of people before it was accepted throughout the US. (It wasn't even made into an amendment until years later, after the South had been defeated and most slaves had been freed.)

>The California Constitution IS easy to amend. Too easy.

I agree there.

>I sure hope the court doesn't deem itself as the voice of the people.

Neither do I. They are not (and should not) be the voice of the people. In some cases, they should be more powerful than that.

In my view, there are some things that are more important than "the will of the people" or the validity of the Constitution. If Mexican internment camps were voted into being in California via the amendment process, I would hope the courts would rapidly declare them illegal no matter what changes had been made to the constitution. Likewise, even if 50.1% of the people of California voted to take away women's right to vote, I would hope that would not last any longer than it took to hear the case against the new amendment.

[lawrocket 3]

That is your view.

And in my view, a consistent procedure is vital. A procedure leads to less of a chance or arbitrary decision.

Courts are not policy-making arms. Political questions shoul dbe left to the political PROCESS. If the people are unhappy with it, they either vote in new politicians or take matters into their own hands and put things to a vote.

Any time, however, the Constitution is declared Unconstitutional, even though established procedure was followed, you have th eimpression of an arbitrary and capricious court.

And that is a more dreadful thing to me. I can accept losing a popular vote. I cannot accpet losing "because I'm the judge and I say so."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>And in my view, a consistent procedure is vital.

I know, and I understand your position. I think if I had your job I would feel a similar way. But to me, our rights and our freedoms will always be more important than the details of how they are obtained (although I will readily admit that both are important.)

If we had a constitutional crisis in this country, I would still be proud to be an american. If we had a strong constitution, a carefully circumscribed judiciary and a hard limit on powers in each branch - but still had segregated schools, enforced by police - I wouldn't be.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>But to me, our rights and our freedoms will always be more important than the details of how they are obtained

that's nuts, you talk like those are separate things - the process is a critical part of those rights


or, I can respond in Billvon fashion -

So, you would perfectly content to just imprison an accused criminal without a trial, then?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>that's nuts, you talk like those are separate things - the process is
>a critical part of those rights.

I agree. But the most important part is the result, not the process. (Needless to say you need both.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>that's nuts, you talk like those are separate things - the process is
>a critical part of those rights.

I agree. But the most important part is the result, not the process. (Needless to say you need both.)

yeah, due process is a burden we should eliminate - the ends justify any means

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>yeah, due process is a burden we should eliminate - the ends
>justify any means

Nope. But the ends are why we have the means to begin with, and I think it's important to remember that. It really does matter whether or not we find the guilty guy guilty and the innocent guy innocent - even if you cross all the t's and dot the i's.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But the most important part is the result, not the process.

I don't think you believe that bill. Let us apply this thought to other things.
- you now that Joe committed that murder. And he must be made to pay. There is not enough to get either an arrest or a search warrant. But - and with this you are certain - Joe is the killer. Arrest him without a warrant. The right result is being reached, regardless of the process.

- Joe stands trial. The only evidence against him is a confession which resulted from "alternative interrogation methods." But we know he did it. Keep the confession in.

- Joe has chosen lawrocket as his lawyer. This strikes fear in the law enforcement community because he's so compelling that it is certain that Joe will be off the hook. Thus, I get arrested entering court for a charge of "abetting a murderer in defending himself." What I am trying to do is just the wrong thing. Process shouldn't matter.

- No attorney is allowed to assist Joe. And he is allowed to present no evidence. He is convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no right to appeal.

- Joe challenges the constitutionality of the entire process. The courts, in doing the right thing, note that his right to appeal was taken away, and nothing in the Constitution provides that an appeal is a matter of right for a known murderer who didn't receive the death penalty. The court did the right thing in not letting the guilty man out.

- The citizens pass an amendment to the California Constitution guaranteeing the right to an evidentiary hearing on issue of a new trial for all persons convicted of murder or rape who may provide exculpatory DNA evidence, called the "Free Joe Amendment." This amendment is challenged. The court, on the basis of doing the right thing, reaches the "right" result and strikes it down as unconstitutional. "DNA has never been mentioned in the Constitution before. Thus, the original drafters did not authorize it, and we will not question their wisdom."

We see it in Gitmo - forget due process! The Bush Admin was doing the right thing and the measures were necessary for security and freedom. Since they might go free if we actually try them, we can't have that happening.

Many would argue that Bush did the "right thing" and reached the "right result." Sure, it goes contrary to everything objective that is laid down, but when you think you are right you are right, you know.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

But the most important part is the result, not the process.

I don't think you believe that bill.

I agree, he's smarter than that. But taking Devil's Advocate is fun. And he likes to have fun. But since this drift is so obtuse, it's not fun for us.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>I don't think you believe that bill. Let us apply this thought to other things.

I'm afraid I don't understand your example. I am not suggesting deliberately withholding any of those things.

A counterexample. Joe commits a murder. He does it in front of a dozen witnesses. The police arrive. He runs away. A cop yells "Stop or I'll shoot!" He does not stop. The cop shoots him dead.

Would you object to that outcome, based on the fact that he was put to death without a trial?

I know you're going to say "that's not what I mean" so let's get this back to the original example, which is a constitutional amendment which reduces the rights of the people. Let's say that the California Constitution is amended to require that all Mexicans be put in internment camps, and that any person harboring a Mexican is subject to legal action. Would you support that? Or would you hope that the courts find it unenforceable?

[lawrocket 3]

I would expect that the court finds it unenforceable on the basis of - DING DING - due process.

We have a procedure for the forcible detention of people. That's due process. And if the people vote on a Constitutional Amendment that reduces the rights of "Mexicans" then I would expect that to be challenged in Court. Of course, to say that the Amendment is Unconstitutional would be frviolous!!!

Let us assume that it is a state constitutional amendment. Well, it violates the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. It's generally unthinakable to try something like that unless you are FDR.

What I would NOT want is for a judge or justice to find that it was the "right thing to do." Perhaps that jurist voted for it.

My issue bill, was that you wrote:

Quote

But the most important part is the result, not the process. (Needless to say you need both.)

There isn't a way to read that other than a statement that if you have to choose between cheating to win or playing by the rules and losing, then cheat.

After all, "cheating" is a usurping of the process to obtain a preferred result. It's why I wrote that I don't think you mean that. For the life of me I cannot fathom you being a proponent of that thought.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

And if the people vote on a Constitutional Amendment that reduces the rights of "Mexicans" then I would expect that to be challenged in Court. Of course, to say that the Amendment is Unconstitutional would be frviolous!!!

Let us assume that it is a state constitutional amendment. Well, it violates the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. It's generally unthinakable to try something like that unless you are FDR.

good.

replace "mexicans" with "gays" in your sentences and you have stated the point EXACTLY. NOW, my question is, since i don't have a legal education, what is the PROCESS to get said state constitutional amendment struck down under the FEDERAL 14th amendment? I've been reading that it will never go to the USSC, because it's a california matter. But if the state's constitution violates the federal, what then?

You would expect it to be challenged in court. Is that not what's happening now with prop 8?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Courts are not policy-making arms.

Sure they are. There are a lot of people in the South who
can tell you otherwise. Vote whatever way you want, but
if the politicians can convince the SC, it's done.
Ask the Kennedys.

A lot of people actually view it as a political overthrow of the
elected govt of the South.

Quote

I cannot accept losing "because I'm the judge and I say so."

You in the wrong bidness. Good luck with that.

[billvon 3,120]

>We have a procedure for the forcible detention of people. That's due process.
>And if the people vote on a Constitutional Amendment that reduces the rights of
>"Mexicans" then I would expect that to be challenged in Court.

Of course. And if it failed the court challenge? Would you report Mexicans who come into your office to the police, so they could be put in camps?

>There isn't a way to read that other than a statement that if you have to
>choose between cheating to win or playing by the rules and losing, then cheat.

In some cases, yes. If I had to violate the law to help someone who was (for example) being put in an internment camp, I would - even if you would consider that 'cheating.'

The law is important. There are principles higher than law, though; we fought a bloody civil war when we could not agree on one of those principles. I strongly suspect you agree with that sentiment, and that there are people/issues in your life who you place above what the law says.