California Supreme Court Hearing Arguments on Same Sex Marriage

[guywithashovel]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...5241IH20090305

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090305/...us_gaymarriage

They are hearing arguments regarding whether or not they shoud overturn Proposition 8. And typically, the religious right is frothing at the mouth. But let's not forget, they want LESS GOVERNMENT.

[AFPheonix]

I can't say that I'm surprised that Ken Starr is heading up the crew to uphold Prop 8. Anytime there's something stinky to wallow in, he sure likes to be in the middle of it, it seems.

I was listening to some blurbs on this on NPR on the way home today. Social conservatives are threatening to recall justices if they vote to overturn.
I swear, some people act like gays are gonna eat babies instead of wedding cake if they're allowed to wed.

[Boozy]

This is a complete one-off tangent, but mentioning gay rights and NPR made me think of this:

David Rakoff, gay NPR contributor, was on the radio musing about the signs the Prop 8 supporters were holding: "It's ADAM and EVE, not ADAM and STEVE."

Rakoff said, "Of COURSE it's not Adam and Steve. It would be Adam and Steven."

I'm glad the gay community is able to maintain a sense humour about all this, but they've got to be getting pissed off, too. It's outrageous to think that civil rights can be granted or taken away by popular vote. I hope the Supreme Court sets this right.

[smileyeagle1021]

Boozy, I agree completely with you... I hope the Supreme Court sets it right. I hope they finally pull their heads out of their asses and say that if marriage is so sacred something so profane as the government should be involved and do away with all government issued marriage licenses, give access to civil unions to any consenting adults (gay, straight, polygamous, whatever) and leave marriage where it belongs, in the churches.
Failing that I hope they start allowing gay marriage again.

[guywithashovel]

Boozy, I agree completely with you... I hope the Supreme Court sets it right. I hope they finally pull their heads out of their asses and say that if marriage is so sacred something so profane as the government should be involved and do away with all government issued marriage licenses, give access to civil unions to any consenting adults (gay, straight, polygamous, whatever) and leave marriage where it belongs, in the churches.
Failing that I hope they start allowing gay marriage again.

I sometimes lurk through the sections of Yahoo Answers. This topic has come up quite a bit there, especially in the religion and spirituality section and in the government sections. Many of the people there say that the courts in California "imposed" gay marriage on the people by making it legal. They also say that if the court overturns Proposition 8, then the court would be "overruling democracy."

I guess people will always find ways to rationalize their ideas.

[Boozy]

Apparently, the vast majority of Americans do not understand how their "democracy" works. Only 30% of them can name the three branches of government, let alone identify what they do.

That's why many Prop 8 supporters are confused by the Supreme Court's decisions. And they certainly don't understand the inherent danger of overturning civil rights based on popular vote. The California Supreme Court will be very concerned about precedence in a case like this.

[AdminAssistant]

Boozy, I think California is unique in that legislation can be passed by simple majority vote (of the populace).

Either way, it brings to mind - What is popular isn't always right, and what is right isn't always popular.

[Bliss]

I wonder, since this has been used successfully as an analogy before, does any of you know of any historical events in which popular vote was used for creation of racist laws?

[smileyeagle1021]

That's why many Prop 8 supporters are confused by the Supreme Court's decisions. And they certainly don't understand the inherent danger of overturning civil rights based on popular vote. The California Supreme Court will be very concerned about precedence in a case like this.

oh, I'm perfectly fine with the court agreeing you can overturn rights by vote as long as the Mormons are the next to lose their rights... their fight will make it the the US Supreme court a lot faster and will remove this ridicules precedent faster... besides, they deserve it... fucking cultists.

[BlaqueKatt]

well it's now legal in Iowa

and from the wording of the decision there let's hope it makes people think about it more-powerful words from the Iowa supreme court-

n its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

[TheRoo]

I applaud the Iowa court for their decision. I read the unanimous opinion written by Justice Mark Cady. He covers all bases, including why the Iowa law violates equal protection, which is a very high burden that the plaintiffs proved. It also says why, at least in this case, it is proper for a court to intervene. More of my take on the Iowa case can be read here.

The difference between Iowa and California is that Iowa had a law that violated the state constitution (according to the Iowa Supreme Court), and California's discrimination is codified into the constitution itself. It seems to me that the only way that California's stance could be negated by the court would be if there was some technicality in how the amendment was passed or another constitutional amendment repealing the one that went into effect last November.

[Jester]

I swear, some people act like gays are gonna eat babies instead of wedding cake if they're allowed to wed.

And here I thought that that was where the phrase "babycakes" came from!

...leave marriage where it belongs, in the churches.

Some atheists, among others, might disagree that churches are where marriage belongs. Just a thought.

Boozy, I think California is unique in that legislation can be passed by simple majority vote (of the populace).

California is not unique. The process is called either initiative or referendum (initiative is new legislation, referendum is the repealing of existing legislation), and other states have them. One I can name specifically is my home state of Arizona. The inclusion of initiative and referendum in the Arizona State Constitution actually caused a delay in Arizona being admitted to the Union as the 48th State, as a lot of the powers that were weren't overly fond of the idea. Little history lesson for you.

For reference purposes, there are actually 27 States, mostly in the west, that have one or both of these processes as part of their Constitutions, though there is no federal version of either in the U.S.

States with both initiative and referendum processes: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

States with initiative only: Florida, Illinois, and Mississippi.

States with referendum only: Kentucky, Maryland, and New Mexico.

[IDrinkaRum]

This just in ...

California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8 ... but says the 18,000 gay marriages that happened before the Proposition passed are still legal.

[smileyeagle1021]

you know... as disappointed I am in the court's decision, I am reasured by Justice Moreno's dissenting opinion

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S168047.PDF
his opinion starts on page 151, it's a long read, but it's worth it.

[Nyoibo]

"It's ADAM and EVE, not ADAM and STEVE."

Rakoff said, "Of COURSE it's not Adam and Steve. It would be Adam and Steven."

I like that response, the response I came up with last time I heard "It's ADAM and EVE, not ADAM and STEVE." was "no shit, if it was we'd still be in the garden of eden" It was amusing watching the expression up dumbstruckness on their face.