Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue May 26, 2009 5:11 pm UTC

CBS 5 has a write-up.
http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.prop ... 19418.html
Existing marriages will remain valid.

For my part, I echo the cry of the crowd outside the courthouse: Shame on you.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 26, 2009 5:40 pm UTC

I just wish they had invalidated the 36,000 marriages.

How can they explain the different nomenclature afforded to one couple who married when it was legal, and the other couple who will not?

What irritates me, though, is the pep talk from all these idiotic queers. "We'll win the battle; look at the other states!"

Yeah, in probably more than 3 decades. All those states that approved marriage equality are on a very tiny region, not to mention the most liberal ones. Meanwhile, 22 other states have passed marriage bans-- most of which have been upheld by their state supreme courts. This is not a changing tide. The wave will crash against the actual picture of this country. The majority of the other states who will not accept marriage equality.

It's the same crap with these gays over and over again. They overestimate the acceptance of their neighbors. It happened in Florida, gay mecca of South Beach and Ft. Lauderdale. It happened in supposedly "gay-friendly" California, where even San Francisco only narrowly rejected prop 8, and where prop 8 passed in Los Angeles.

It's time to wake up and realize that just because you have a concentration of clubs to go have one night stands over and flaunt their exuberance doesn't mean that many of your straight neighbors respect you. They just like you for prettying up their women and gentrifying neighborhoods, so they can come and push you out afterwards.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby BlackSails » Tue May 26, 2009 5:42 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Yeah, in probably more than 3 decades. All those states that approved marriage equality are on a very tiny region, not to mention the most liberal ones. Meanwhile, 22 other states have passed marriage bans-- most of which have been upheld by their state supreme courts. This is not a changing tide. The wave will crash against the actual picture of this country. The majority of the other states who will not accept marriage equality.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html

Not as long as you think.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby segmentation fault » Tue May 26, 2009 5:45 pm UTC

great. now the religious people think theyve won some sort of holy battle. this might be a bigger step back than most people think.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
CueBall
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere with a gherkin in the middle.
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby CueBall » Tue May 26, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:great. now the religious people think theyve won some sort of holy battle. this might be a bigger step back than most people think.


I doubt many people actually think like that.
Spoiler:
Zohar wrote:Cueball is being generally hilarious today.
Sungura wrote:Cueball, I...I...
...
<3
Box Boy wrote:Now let us wait for the outcome of CueBall's fight to the death!

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 26, 2009 5:55 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
Yeah, in probably more than 3 decades. All those states that approved marriage equality are on a very tiny region, not to mention the most liberal ones. Meanwhile, 22 other states have passed marriage bans-- most of which have been upheld by their state supreme courts. This is not a changing tide. The wave will crash against the actual picture of this country. The majority of the other states who will not accept marriage equality.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html

Not as long as you think.


Those are speculations about when would marriage bans be refused, not when marriage equality would be voted for. There's a large difference.

And being in my early 20's, you'll have to forgive me for being resentful of the fact that while all the straights around me are getting married at 23-25, I'm gonna have to wait until I'm 30+ and past my prime to actually get married. People start having children at 27+.
Last edited by Lucrece on Tue May 26, 2009 5:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 26, 2009 5:57 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:How can they explain the different nomenclature afforded to one couple who married when it was legal, and the other couple who will not?


1) ex post facto laws.

2) I think your too pessimistic. This is a big blow to gay marriage, but I don't believe it will take as long as 3 decades for it to be legal in all 50 states. Also, I don't even know but does California have any form of civil unions?

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 26, 2009 6:01 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Lucrece wrote:How can they explain the different nomenclature afforded to one couple who married when it was legal, and the other couple who will not?


1) ex post facto laws.

2) I think your too pessimistic. This is a big blow to gay marriage, but I don't believe it will take as long as 3 decades for it to be legal in all 50 states. Also, I don't even know but does California have any form of civil unions?

Ixtellor


California has "domestic partnerships". I already get nauseous just by starting to say "domestic".
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby segmentation fault » Tue May 26, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

CueBall wrote:
segmentation fault wrote:great. now the religious people think theyve won some sort of holy battle. this might be a bigger step back than most people think.


I doubt many people actually think like that.


think like what? that its a holy battle? more think that way than you would probably imagine. people actually put themselves into the poor house contributing to this campaign as though it was a matter of life and death.

and yeah, regarding domestic partnerships, the 7 page ruling was basically the judges explaining how "separate but equal" is actually somehow equal.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue May 26, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

Like this ruling as a win for their ideology. They may shill it as such, but it's hollow - they're more presenting it as the court protecting their "civil rights" to pass a constitutional amendment to strip civil rights of others. And I suppose they're right on that count.

I feel very strongly that this needs to be resolved at the federal level yesterday. The DOMA isn't even debatably constitutional, it violates the clause that requires states to recognize the regulations of other states. And if gay marriage is explicitly legalized at the federal level, what the states say doesn't matter anymore.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 26, 2009 6:13 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:The DOMA isn't even debatably constitutional, it violates the clause that requires states to recognize the regulations of other states


Not really true. There is substantial legal precedence that States may differentiate and ignore other States marriage laws. Including: Siblings, age, polygamy,divorce, etc.

While I disagree with DOMA, it does pass constitutional muster.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby segmentation fault » Tue May 26, 2009 6:21 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:Not really true. There is substantial legal precedence that States may differentiate and ignore other States marriage laws. Including: Siblings, age, polygamy,divorce, etc.

While I disagree with DOMA, it does pass constitutional muster.

Ixtellor


id like to know how. full faith and credit states "full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state." how would marriage not fall into one of those categories?
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby BlackSails » Tue May 26, 2009 6:25 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:Not really true. There is substantial legal precedence that States may differentiate and ignore other States marriage laws. Including: Siblings, age, polygamy,divorce, etc.

While I disagree with DOMA, it does pass constitutional muster.

Ixtellor


id like to know how. full faith and credit states "full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state." how would marriage not fall into one of those categories?


States dont need to recognize permits for anything illiegal in their state. A permit in Florida to own a machine gun will not pass muster in NY. A permit for fireworks in Ohio wont let me shoot off fireworks in Oregon.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby segmentation fault » Tue May 26, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

marriage is a legal binding contract, no? i dont think permits really apply in this situation.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Heisenberg » Tue May 26, 2009 6:46 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:States dont need to recognize permits for anything illiegal in their state. A permit in Florida to own a machine gun will not pass muster in NY. A permit for fireworks in Ohio wont let me shoot off fireworks in Oregon.

This would make sense if it were legal in Iowa for two people to engage in a contract, but illegal in Montana. But you're not arguing that all contracts in Iowa are illegal in Montana, just that two men may not have a contract, but one man and one woman may. That would violate the equal protection clause.

So the combination of Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit means that any state that recognizes marriage at all must recognize all marriages from other states, regardless of the gender of the spouses.

The way I see it, states must either recognize all marriages, or get out of the marriage business altogether.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby BlackSails » Tue May 26, 2009 7:02 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
BlackSails wrote:States dont need to recognize permits for anything illiegal in their state. A permit in Florida to own a machine gun will not pass muster in NY. A permit for fireworks in Ohio wont let me shoot off fireworks in Oregon.

This would make sense if it were legal in Iowa for two people to engage in a contract, but illegal in Montana. But you're not arguing that all contracts in Iowa are illegal in Montana, just that two men may not have a contract, but one man and one woman may. That would violate the equal protection clause.


Contracts to do illegal things are always unenforcable. Marrying a man (if you are a man) or a woman (if you are a woman) is illegal, so the contract is void.

(Note that I think it shouldnt be illiegal, but thats what the current laws state)

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby segmentation fault » Tue May 26, 2009 7:10 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Contracts to do illegal things are always unenforcable. Marrying a man (if you are a man) or a woman (if you are a woman) is illegal, so the contract is void.


its illegal to get married, not already be married. they may not have to marry you, but they have to recognize the contract that was made elsewhere.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Vaniver » Tue May 26, 2009 7:13 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:its illegal to get married, not already be married. they may not have to marry you, but they have to recognize the contract that was made elsewhere.
That's not the way the laws work. If a state's constitution defines a marriage as a "contract between a man and a woman," then a marriage contract between a man and a man is an invalid/illegal (and hence unenforceable) contract in that state.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby segmentation fault » Tue May 26, 2009 7:17 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
segmentation fault wrote:its illegal to get married, not already be married. they may not have to marry you, but they have to recognize the contract that was made elsewhere.
That's not the way the laws work. If a state's constitution defines a marriage as a "contract between a man and a woman," then a marriage contract between a man and a man is an invalid/illegal (and hence unenforceable) contract in that state.


then not only is DOMA unconstitutional but this law is as well based on full faith and credit as well as equal rights. for some reason no judge wants to actually uphold the constitution regarding this issue.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Malice » Tue May 26, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

Maybe I've been watching too much Firefly lately but I think lapsing into a string of Chinese curse words is an appropriate response.

But since I don't know Chinese: Fucking motherfucking shitheads! God dammit!

And, well, yeah.

It's bad enough being labeled a second-class citizen; it's adding injury to insult when my government upholds the rights of my countrymen to label me a second-class citizen. I wish I would have been there protesting. Or seeking out counter-protesters and beating them with a sign on a stick.
Image

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby btilly » Tue May 26, 2009 10:41 pm UTC

The legal argument revolved on the difference between an amendment and a revision. The prop 8 folks said that the California constitution nowhere directly dealt with marriage, so this is an amendment, not a revision. The anti-prop 8 folks said that the courts had ruled that the constitution protected the right of gays to marriage, so this was a revision, not an amendment. The point of the argument is that to get a revision passed is much more difficult than to get an amendment passed. Specifically you need 2/3 majorities in both house and senate and then a majority vote to pass a revision. An amendment just needs a majority vote.

The court ruled that prop 8 is an amendment. However a proposition overturning prop 8 would almost assuredly be a revision. Given how difficult it is to pass a revision, I predict that gay marriage will not pass here in the next decade. In fact I the most likely route to legalization that I see for California is that the makeup of the US Supreme Court passes, and then a landmark case similar to Loving v. Virginia overrides our constitution.
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Malice » Tue May 26, 2009 11:09 pm UTC

btilly wrote:The court ruled that prop 8 is an amendment. However a proposition overturning prop 8 would almost assuredly be a revision. Given how difficult it is to pass a revision, I predict that gay marriage will not pass here in the next decade.


Actually, from what I can tell, the Court's reasoning was:

Prop 8 doesn't strip rights away, in terms of the legal definition of marriage; it only changes the name. Therefore it was not a revision.

Repealing it wouldn't be a revision either.
Image

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby btilly » Tue May 26, 2009 11:29 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
btilly wrote:The court ruled that prop 8 is an amendment. However a proposition overturning prop 8 would almost assuredly be a revision. Given how difficult it is to pass a revision, I predict that gay marriage will not pass here in the next decade.

Actually, from what I can tell, the Court's reasoning was:

Prop 8 doesn't strip rights away, in terms of the legal definition of marriage; it only changes the name. Therefore it was not a revision.

Repealing it wouldn't be a revision either.

I was all set to argue, then I googled and found that the definition of a revision in the constitution is substantial alteration of the entire constitution rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions whereas I had thought it to be a much lower bar. Which means that you're absolutely right.
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Bakemaster » Wed May 27, 2009 4:34 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:And being in my early 20's, you'll have to forgive me for being resentful of the fact that while all the straights around me are getting married at 23-25, I'm gonna have to wait until I'm 30+ and past my prime to actually get married. People start having children at 27+.

Past your prime? No offense, but I'm curious: What's stopping you from settling down with someone for life, right now? Are you concerned about your right to adopt? (I'm not sure where you live.)
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Lucrece » Wed May 27, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Bakemaster wrote:
Lucrece wrote:And being in my early 20's, you'll have to forgive me for being resentful of the fact that while all the straights around me are getting married at 23-25, I'm gonna have to wait until I'm 30+ and past my prime to actually get married. People start having children at 27+.

Past your prime? No offense, but I'm curious: What's stopping you from settling down with someone for life, right now? Are you concerned about your right to adopt? (I'm not sure where you live.)


Florida is currently seeing a litigation on the adoption ban.

I can settle with someone, but when we come back from vacation, and we reach the immigration section, we'll be reminded how precarious it is when the officials force us to stand in different lines and enter as separated. Far more complicated when you involve children; who will they get in line with? What will they draw when they see other families together, but they see their own not recognized at all? How will it affect them if we go to another state, and officials want to remove the children from us, since the state does not recognize us as family (this happened to a couple who had to litigate custody in Oklahoma)? I am basically getting on some game of musical chairs when it comes to having my family recognized. I am restricted to functioning as a family in only a handful of states, while being in legal jeopardy in the rest of them.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Ixtellor » Wed May 27, 2009 1:14 pm UTC

You made me think of something, that will present legal questions in the future.
As it currently stands, the natural parents of children will utimatly always have full parental rights -- even if they sign contracts to the contrary.

Since gay couples are incapable of being the 2 natural parents of a child, this will present problems down the road as gay marriage and adoption gain acceptance and legal protections. As the law stands, ultimatly, the natural parent #2 who was the donor or surrogate will always have the authority to demand custody and parental rights, and one of the gay partners who is not the natural parent, will always be viewed as a 3rd party.

Has the gay community thought about this or have a solution prepared? Aside from mega-binding legal contracts... which the courts have already overturned in favor of natural parental rights?


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Vaniver » Wed May 27, 2009 3:22 pm UTC

There isn't a solution from the direction of the 3rd parent- there's only a solution from the direction of the natural parents. As in, the law is changed to specifically remove the natural's parents ultimate claim to the children.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby Lucrece » Wed May 27, 2009 3:51 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:You made me think of something, that will present legal questions in the future.
As it currently stands, the natural parents of children will utimatly always have full parental rights -- even if they sign contracts to the contrary.

Since gay couples are incapable of being the 2 natural parents of a child, this will present problems down the road as gay marriage and adoption gain acceptance and legal protections. As the law stands, ultimatly, the natural parent #2 who was the donor or surrogate will always have the authority to demand custody and parental rights, and one of the gay partners who is not the natural parent, will always be viewed as a 3rd party.

Has the gay community thought about this or have a solution prepared? Aside from mega-binding legal contracts... which the courts have already overturned in favor of natural parental rights?


Ixtellor


The good lawyers in Massachusetts always tell married gay couples that, even if they are under MA law considered family, it behooves the non-biological parent to adopt the children, since their status can be challenged in another state.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supremes

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed May 27, 2009 11:19 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:You made me think of something, that will present legal questions in the future.
As it currently stands, the natural parents of children will utimatly always have full parental rights -- even if they sign contracts to the contrary.

Except in the case of adoption, in which case even a new birth certificate is issued (at least in some cases, that may be limited to international adoptions). So there's actually a really simple way to get around that.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests