lawrocket 3 #1 May 26, 2009 The Cali Supreme Court will release its ruling today. Three issues will be decided: (1) Whether the Constitutional provision banning gay marriage is an "amendment" or a "revision"; (2) Whether marriage is an "inalienable" right under California law (I'm putting Jerry Brown's argument in the most reasonable light I can); and (3) Whether the existing gay marriages are nullified. My opinion and prediction: (1) This is an authorized amendment and not a revision because it does not alter the structure of the government - which seems to me to be fairly obvious. (2) There us no natural law that allows a judge to individually decide what it is. (3) Because marriage was vested, it cannot be retroactively taken away. To me, it is unfortunate. I voted against Prop 8. I detest it. But more abhorrent to me would be a court that by fiat would decide that the California Constitution is too easy to amend and because of that, the courts will decide whether an amendent is the right thing to do. Since I am in court this morning I likely won't have a chance to read it until lateer this a.m. Or this afternoon. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 May 26, 2009 Quote But more abhorrent to me would be a court that by fiat would decide that the California Constitution is too easy to amend and because of that, the courts will decide whether an amendent is the right thing to do. A judge usurping the prerogatives of the legislature (and in this case the voters directly) is no different than the cop usurping the prerogatives of the judge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #3 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuote But more abhorrent to me would be a court that by fiat would decide that the California Constitution is too easy to amend and because of that, the courts will decide whether an amendent is the right thing to do. A judge usurping the prerogatives of the legislature (and in this case the voters directly) is no different than the cop usurping the prerogatives of the judge. It's actually way worse. The cop only effects one (or a few) people. The judges here will effect millions.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 May 26, 2009 I've got no issue with a court usurping the will of the people, the legislatures, the executives, etc. I DO have a BIG problem with judges usurpong the rule of law because they don't like the rule of law. I fully believe that the California Constitution is too easy to amend - just a 50% vote can amend it. I also think that because the Cali Constitution is so easy to amend it is now a political joke. I think a Cali Constitutional Convention should be called (though I reckon this would be awful considering the gerrymandering of Cali's districts.) But the Constitution IS the basis for the law. To call the Constitution "Unconstitutional" is logically irreconcilable. Say, "this statute violates the Constitution.". Yeah. That's what judges do. "I don't like the Constitution so I will change it" is what the People do. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #5 May 26, 2009 It is official, Prop 8 is upheld.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #6 May 26, 2009 QuoteIt is official, Prop 8 is upheld. It is indeed unfortunate when bigotry is deemed constitutional in any state. I'm wondering how long it will be before discrimination against same sex couples is challenged as unConstitutional in federal courts.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #7 May 26, 2009 not being a lawyer, what sort of case could be put in front of federal courts to challenge it? Taxes? Seems reasonable. lawrocket, correct me if i'm wrong, but currently the federal government still doesn't recognize legal gay marriages made in maine, iowa, massachussetts, etc. right? So would a challenge of the federal tax laws be an appropriate way to bring the issue before federal courts? I'm asking because it's interesting to me and i truly don't know...Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 May 26, 2009 QuoteIt is indeed unfortunate when bigotry is deemed constitutional in any state. I agree. I am not a fan of this outcome and I believe that this will be rectified in the coming years. I have finally had the opportunity to pull up this case. It took about ten minutes since California Courts website is flooded right now. This is 185 pages, so it'll take me a bit of time to skim, and I'll post some commentary about the various points. But from Page 3 I see that the court reads my posts on this forum (it's okay if they don't cite me this time): QuoteIn a sense, this trilogy of cases illustrates the variety of limitations that our constitutional system imposes upon each branch of government — the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 780, our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values. This is the court saying what I told them to say, "We don't like this, but our job is to interpret it according to our rules, not our likes." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #9 May 26, 2009 Quotenot being a lawyer, what sort of case could be put in front of federal courts to challenge it? Suppose a same sex couple who were legally married in one state subsequently moved to another state that does not recognize same sex marriages. If that state did not recognize their marriage as valid, it would appear to be a violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #10 May 26, 2009 QuoteIt is indeed unfortunate when bigotry is deemed constitutional in any state. So then you agree that anyone that is intolerant of or takes offense to my opinions on marriage is a bigot. After all, that is the definition.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 May 26, 2009 A couple of hours ago I wrote: QuoteBut more abhorrent to me would be a court that by fiat would decide that the California Constitution is too easy to amend Minutes ago, the court released this: QuoteIn a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. (Page 12-13.) Okay, this will be the last patting myself on the back for the next few minutes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #12 May 26, 2009 Quote Okay, this will be the last patting myself on the back for the next few minutes. By all mean, please accept my time to continue patting yourself on the back wise one.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #13 May 26, 2009 Quote]So then you agree that anyone that is intolerant of or takes offense to my opinions on marriage is a bigot. I don't know your opinion, and I certainly would not agree without such knowledge. Quote After all, that is the definition. What is the definition? And, what is it a definition of?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #14 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuotenot being a lawyer, what sort of case could be put in front of federal courts to challenge it? Suppose a same sex couple who were legally married in one state subsequently moved to another state that does not recognize same sex marriages. If that state did not recognize their marriage as valid, it would appear to be a violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." I completely agree with you. It follows, also, that when a concealed weapons permit holder from one state travels to another, the Full Faith and Credit clause requires that state to honor the valid permit issued by another.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 May 26, 2009 QuoteIt follows, also, that when a concealed weapons permit holder from one state travels to another, the Full Faith and Credit clause requires that state to honor the valid permit issued by another. While I'm not opposed to such interstate recognition, I'm not sure that it "follows" as you claim it does. For example, if a concealed carry license specifies that the permit holder is authorized to carry a concealed weapon within a particular state, then outside of that state there would be no authorization, in much the same manner that a state fishing permit only authorizes the holder to fish within a particular state. Marriage is not limited to such restrictions. If a couple is married in Kansas and subsequently moves to Texas, they do not need to be remarried.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #16 May 26, 2009 QuoteI don't know your opinion, and I certainly would not agree without such knowledge.Well then I will tell you. I am against same sex marriage. Marriage is a specific religious term regarding a man and a woman. It should have never been brought into and comingled with government. I DO think that civil unions should be allowed to grant equality of rights. I don't think anyone should be able to dictate who I spend my life with or who I want to receive MY benefits. If the same sex marriage proponents want to win the war then they need to quit fighting the battles. Go for civil unions and I bet that it will pass a whole lot faster. I know that I would support it.QuoteWhat is the definition? And, what is it a definition of?Bigot Just because someone voted for Prop 8 does not automatically make them a bigot.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #17 May 26, 2009 Quote.. if a concealed carry license specifies that the permit holder is authorized to carry a concealed weapon within a particular state... What if it doesn't say that? Driver's licenses, which are quite analogous (they are an operating license for a potentially dangerous piece of equipment that is also quite useful), are generally recognized in other states, under the Full Faith and Credit clause.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #18 May 26, 2009 I expected them to uphold prop 8. I am glad, though, that the gay marriages that were performed before prop 8 have been upheld. Gay marriage is now literally legal in California, although no new ones can be performed until another proposition (prop 9?) can be passed. In the long run, gay marriage will be completely legal in California. Gays will someday have the same rights that groups like women and blacks have attained. Having tens of thousands of legal gay marriages in California - proof that gay marriages can work and do not cause the collapse of society - will help that day come sooner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #19 May 26, 2009 QuoteMarriage is a specific religious term regarding a man and a woman. It is? I am an athiest. I got married by a man who was not affiliated with a religious group in any way at a casino in Las Vegas. Am I not married? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #20 May 26, 2009 Bill makes an excellent point. basically, the court left the door open for the future by upholding existing marriages. All that can provide is proof (though perhaps qualitatively) that gay marriage won't be the downfall of modern society...Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #21 May 26, 2009 QuoteIt bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values. ABSOLUTELY the right position for a court to take on EVERY case they try. It should be the primary litmus test for any judicial appointment. (speaking of the SCOTUS......) I think it's a good thing in the this instance in that the people of California can now pursue equality in civil unions in a legal manner and not waste time hoping for illegal judicial activism to short cut the process. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #22 May 26, 2009 QuoteI am against same sex marriage. Marriage is a specific religious term regarding a man and a woman. It should have never been brought into and comingled with government. I DO think that civil unions should be allowed to grant equality of rights. I don't think anyone should be able to dictate who I spend my life with or who I want to receive MY benefits. If the same sex marriage proponents want to win the war then they need to quit fighting the battles. Go for civil unions and I bet that it will pass a whole lot faster. I know that I would support it. I strongly disagree. Your proposal sounds like the same "separate, but equal" nonsense previously promoted by racial bigots. If marriage is a religious institution, then the government has no business recognizing any marriage. If it's a legal institution, then the religious zealots have no business telling others what marriage is or isn't. QuoteQuoteWhat is the definition? And, what is it a definition of?Bigot Just because someone voted for Prop 8 does not automatically make them a bigot I think there's a very strong correlation. Bigotry under the guise of religious beliefs is still bigotry and still wrong.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #23 May 26, 2009 QuoteIf marriage is a religious institution, then the government has no business recognizing any marriage. Correct. I have trouble understanding why we need the government to be in the marriage business at all.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 May 26, 2009 QuoteBigot Just because someone voted for Prop 8 does not automatically make them a bigot. Ya know what Mike . . . it kinda does. Prop 8 was extremely mean spirited. Voting for it was a vote for hate and certainly not a very "Christian" thing to do. Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #25 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteBigot Just because someone voted for Prop 8 does not automatically make them a bigot. Ya know what Mike . . . it kinda does. Prop 8 was extremely mean spirited. Voting for it was a vote for hate and certainly not a very "Christian" thing to do. Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes. I don't think I'd say the majority of California voters are bigots. Labeling those who disagree with you is easy. Actually discussing things with them is harder, but always more productive.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
