Prop 8

[Hurlshort]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_...rriage_lawsuits

 

How is this not the most effed up thing ever?

[Xard]

because japs make charity porn?

[Trenitay]

Wow. What the hell. They cant just let it go? Really? What is wrong with these people?

[Calax]

I think that if the pro-prop 8's keep up the shinanigans then we'll see the amendment thrown out.

[Gorgon]

Why can't these people find something a little more worthwhile to do with their lives.

[Morgoth]

I'm myself against gay marriages, but trying to annulate already married couples is just stupid.

[Guard Dog]

I think that if the pro-prop 8's keep up the shinanigans then we'll see the amendment thrown out.

 

The California SC cannot throw the amendment out because it is part of the Constitution of the State now. In other words, unless it conflicts with another aspect of the same it is the supreme law of the state and the SC is bound to enforce and uphold it. That said I'm a little curious how the suit to anull existing marriages makes it to the SC. Correct me if I'm wrong (especially Enoch or Gromnir) but isn't the first requirement of any lawsuit that the plaintiff have standing to file the suit? How are the plaintiffs here damaged by existing marriages to the extent that it requires a legal remedy? What is their standing?

[Killian Kalthorne]

It is bigotry, pure and simple. The majority should not have the right to dictate what civil rights and liberties a minority has.

[Walsingham]

Erm... wouldn't that in fact be democracy? Nudists, smokers, sheep worriers... they all get picked on.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Erm... wouldn't that in fact be democracy? Nudists, smokers, sheep worriers... they all get picked on.

 

A Democracy is all well and good, but there needs to be a balance. Tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

[Calax]

I think that if the pro-prop 8's keep up the shinanigans then we'll see the amendment thrown out.

 

The California SC cannot throw the amendment out because it is part of the Constitution of the State now. In other words, unless it conflicts with another aspect of the same it is the supreme law of the state and the SC is bound to enforce and uphold it. That said I'm a little curious how the suit to anull existing marriages makes it to the SC. Correct me if I'm wrong (especially Enoch or Gromnir) but isn't the first requirement of any lawsuit that the plaintiff have standing to file the suit? How are the plaintiffs here damaged by existing marriages to the extent that it requires a legal remedy? What is their standing?

I think that they are standing on a leg that it's for "the greater good" that these marriages get annulled.

[taks]

if we'd simply drop government sanctioned marriage none of this would matter anyway.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

if we'd simply drop government sanctioned marriage none of this would matter anyway.

 

taks

 

True, but that would be an even tougher battle to win. In a perfect world, the state would handle civil unions and they wouldn't discriminate, and marriage would become the domain of the church. Given that there are may church groups in favor of gay marraige, this would be an equitable decision.

 

But the state has been in the marriage business for a long time, and getting people to see that they shouldn't be involved in it is likely a lot tougher than getting people to see discrimination.

[Gorgon]

The important thing here is that everyone should be treated the same as regards legal standing whether they are married or entered into a civil union, so that marriage doesn't net you more than anyone else.

 

Marriage is a religious institution, if gays don't like being singled out and discriminated against by the Christian church, I'm sure there are more accommodating religions out there somewhere.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Gorgon

[Gorth]

if we'd simply drop government sanctioned marriage none of this would matter anyway.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

How is this not the most effed up thing ever?

 

It's not as bad as the Arkansas Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban.

[Walsingham]

How is this not the most effed up thing ever?

 

It's not as bad as the Arkansas Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban.

 

It's only a proposition.

 

You know, if you chaps signed up to an international human rights treaty you could avoid a lot of this by people appealing to the external court. We've been getting a lot of stuff like that through the EU.

[~Di]

I think that if the pro-prop 8's keep up the shinanigans then we'll see the amendment thrown out.

 

I hope it's thrown out. It's institutionalized discrimination that doesn't just amend our constitution, it revises it... which requires a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature before being put on the ballot. That didn't happen.

 

Besides it wouldn't have passed in the first place if the pro-prop 8 people hadn't shared the crap outta half the populace by threatening that if it didn't pass teachers would be forced by law to "teach the gay lifestyle" to their children from kindergarten on. Damn pack of lies, but it worked.

[Guard Dog]

I'll second Hurlshots suggestion of banning government sanction of marriage.

 

In fact, having actually been married, I really would not recommend it for anyone...

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think the fact that homosexuality is illegal (and punishable by death) in several countries is a bigger issue. A UN declaration on LGBT rights is still a long way off.

[Xard]

How is this not the most effed up thing ever?

 

It's not as bad as the Arkansas Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban.

 

It's only a proposition.

 

You know, if you chaps signed up to an international human rights treaty you could avoid a lot of this by people appealing to the external court. We've been getting a lot of stuff like that through the EU.

 

but UN is evil and hurt mah sovierintyyyy =(

[taks]

I'll second Hurlshots suggestion of banning government sanction of marriage.

my suggestion, actually.

 

the UN is evil, btw, if there is a such thing as "evil." the UN caters to evil sorts such as xard: those that want to oppress and will go anywhere to get oppression forced on people if his country won't sign up for the oppression. at least, that's what xard told me in another thread.

 

taks

Edited December 21, 2008 by taks

[Aristes]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_...rriage_lawsuits

 

How is this not the most effed up thing ever?

 

The idea that marriages entered under the law as it stood at the time would be nullified is abhorrent. No person should be willing to countenance that outcome, no matter how he voted on the measure of gay marriage.

[Meshugger]

if we'd simply drop government sanctioned marriage none of this would matter anyway.

 

taks

 

/thread

[Aristes]

No, the California Supreme Court should not overturn this ammendment. And the folks who support such an idea should pause to think what the effects of this sort of rank judicial activism would mean for the rule of law. If you want to advocate something, how about advocating a state constitution that cannot be ammended by a simple majority? How about cleaning up our joke of a constitution.

 

Yes, we should allow homosexual marriage. However, we should not allow the supreme court to impose it by fiat. The Supreme Court has acted irresponsibly enough on this issue.

 

Just because you disagree with the voters does not mean that you should be glad when the supreme court oversteps its bounds to reverse the will of the people. That should strike as much terror in your heart as the idea of a repressive majority.

 

These are two separate issues. The marriages carried out under standing law should remain valid. The new ammendment should stand. The people of the state should reverse the amendment and allow for homosexual marriages.