slowshooter wrote:HS,High Sierras wrote:Slow,slowshooter wrote:High Sierras wrote:Eat it prop 8...wow.
Regardless of where you fell on this issue, all it means is the will of the people be damned when it's against the wishes of the Democrats when they're in power. So much for the 'party of the people".
Well, it's a conservative court and it still went the way of the Gays.
Just because the majority votes for something doesn't mean they are going to get their way. That the court knocked the case out based on standing has little to do with how the Dems or the Courts view the issue of Gay marriage itself.
Sometimes folks don't have standing, other times what people want is unconstitutional. Sometimes it's neither and voters get their way.
Don't vilify the Dems because the chips fell their way this time. It's not like they influenced the courts.
Maybe you can set me straight (no pun intended... let's not go that direction!) on the background. The voters approved prop 8. The Homosexual community filed that it violated their civil rights. 9th circuit overturned the prop (no, not overturned, but filed an injunction to prevent it from taking effect???) based on the lawsuit. Prop 8 backers (NOT the state govt.) appealed to the SCOTUS, which declined to hear it since the 'appealers' (I know that's not the right word, but it gets the meaning across) were not representatives of the State, and the official State position (the Democrat-controlled state government, under Jerry Brown) was / is something along the lines of "We won't bother to defend what the people of this state voted for, because our ideology does not agree with the will of the people", which made the appeal invalid.
Yes, it was a conservative court, and they did just what they legally had to do...I have no problem there. What I'm bitching at was the fact that the Democrat held State government under Jerry chose not to defend a voter approved proposition, which (in my mind) means they did not pursue what the voters wanted, but instead chose to follow their agenda. Thus the will of the people was overturned by political ideology.
And Clamp, if you think that this ruling will protect gun owners in this State at some future point, and my analysis is correct, think again. If this was a prop to outlaw handguns, assault weapons, semi auto weapons, whatever... And a gun rights group filed an injunction to stop it, do you think a democrat-controlled State government would not bother to appeal that injunction to the SCOTUS and enforce the ban? How the State chooses to defend a lawsuit doesn't necessarily cut both ways, it depends on who is in control in Sacramento at the time...the will of the people be damned.
That's a good question. I think that some administrations have to look at legislation/propositions and determine if they believe that the stuff is even constitutional. That the Brown administration chose not to defend it meant that they felt it probably wasn't going to pass constitutional muster. In this case, that and the fact that it was a Dem administration was more coincidental than anything else. That prop could have been sent to Sac with Arnold in office.
What is interesting to me is that no one has definitively answered if it's "constitutional" or not (although I may have missed that). And I don't believe anyone will. Why? Because polygamy and polyandry are right around the corner. The Fed and State governments know this - and so do the courts. If you accept one set of folks that are in a non-standard marriage minority, then you would have accept all the non-standard marriage minorities out there... That's why you won't see a proclamation from the Feds that protects various marriage architectures.
While the Gay community gets the protections I believe they deserve, those protections will be based moving forward via an administrative bureaucracy - not declaring actual freedom. And the government won't have it any other way.
The Mormons, Islamists and Polyandrous are going to have to continue to operate in the shadows.
Regardless of whether the D’s in office think it was constitutional, don’t you think they had a duty to try to uphold the appeal since it was the will of the voters, and SEE if it’s constitutional? I see what happened as a lame end-run by a bunch of gutless politicians (with 'D's after their name) around what the people of California wanted, since it did not align with their ideology.
And as I’ve said in a lot of past threads… once we ‘normalize’ homosexual marriage as some sort of ‘civil right’, there’s absolutely no legal way you can discriminate against incestuous, polygamist or polyandrous unions. And don’t think the pedophiles aren’t watching this one as well. Slippery slopes are a b#^ch, aren’t they?
What I’m thinking would have happened if Jerry Brown had the balls to do his job and defend prop 8 in the US Supreme Court, we would have found out that there is no discrimination in prop 8. The law allowed any single male to ‘marry’ any single female, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, etc. Just because a gay couple doesn’t want to marry an opposite-sex partner doesn’t mean they’re being discriminated against by prop 8, they have the same right to marry an opposite sex partner as everyone else in the state does.
Then the next logical step would have been to amend the ‘civil union’ definition to include all legal benefits afforded to heterosexuals under ‘marriage’ to the homosexuals, neatly sidestepping the whole slippery slope into deviancy, while allowing gay couples the protection you think they deserve.
Turning down DOMA on the federal level allows federal benefits to remain available to homosexual couples in the Golden State, and allows each state to determine if they want to allow homosexual unions or not.