|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At a hearing in San Francisco this morning, California Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to recommend allowing the sponsors of Proposition 8 to appeal a federal trial court ruling striking down the initiative.
The state high court was asked by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to give an advisory opinion on that aspect of the case. The federal
appeals court is considering the appeal by the sponsors of the ban on same-sex marriage.
The question before the court is whether state law gives an initiative’s sponsors the right to appeal when the state’s governor and attorney general refuse to do so.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, “An initiative measure is an indication of the voters’ will.”
She said “the purpose and integrity of the initiative process” are at stake in the question of who can appeal.
“This issue transcends Proposition 8,” the chief justice said.
Theodore Olson, representing two same-sex couples, argued that the state Constitution gives only the attorney general, not private citizens, the right to appeal in such cases.
But Justice Joyce Kennard said, “It appears to me that to agree with you would be to nullify the great power of the initiative that the people have reserved to themselves.”
The court took the case under submission after an hour of arguments and now has 90 days to issue a written ruling.
After the state court rules, the case will go back to the federal appeals court for a final decision.
To quote, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, “An initiative measure is an indication of the voters’ will.”
End of argument!
Nah, Duffy — that’s just the temporary end of the wrong argument.
We don’t put people’s fundamental rights up to a popular vote in this country, we enshrine those rights in Constitutional concepts like “Equal Protection under the Law.” This is that kind of an issue — the legitimate rights of a minority who will never command a majority, but whose lives matter nonetheless. American lives. Maybe they’re not Your life, but they are the lives of people you know, and may care about.
Your continuing hostility to that very simple, irresistible and inevitable concept baffles me. In a very literal sense: “What’s it to You?”
Why is it liberals believe in the right to your day in court unless they disagree with the plaintiff?
The voters passed Prop 8 and now it’s up to the courts to decide it’s legality. That’s the way the system works. Either support that system or work to change it.
@Dave:
Why is it that conservatives believe the constitution and bill of rights are sacrosanct except when they conflict with their misguided beliefs?
Many of the rights stated in the constitution are there to ensure that the majority cannot override the rights of a minority.
Moreover, why do the righties and teanuts scream “LESS GOVERNMENTS LESS GOVERNMENT” until they are hoarse, yet they seem unable to keep their snoots out of other people’s business? And what is this bizarre obsession with gay people anyway? The planets biggest hypocrites at every single turn.
Make no mistake – this LDS church-originated measure will eventually go down in flames, if not sooner then later.
I find it interesting that homosexual sympathizers are only open to diveristy to the point it does not cross their agenda, and if so then these thoughts that run counter to homosexual agenda are purged from the Danville Town Forum. Thus the homosexual agenda does not and cannot stand up to scrutiny. Adios!
@ Observer: you wanna try that again, with actual coherence? This HS would like to understand what the hell you’re talking about.
Would the opponents of Prop 8 have complained that the vote was unconstitutional if they had prevailed?
This debate has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. It is purely about taking rights away from others. Had Prop 8 taken away straight marriages, wouldn’t the conservative Danville residents make a fight to get that back? Conservative/liberal values should be in regards to philosophy on fiscal policy. This is a human right.
Remember, those of you who feel marriage between a man and a woman is “God’s will” are constitutionally allowed to feel that way. If Prop 8 failed, any church refusing to marry a gay couple could never ever be sued. Your st8 marriage in a church means nothing other than what you feel it is to God, its the certificate you get from the state that makes it legal and official. This is purely legal recognition under the gov’t and a legal certificate.
Finally those that say marriage is an institution that goes back thousands of years fail to realize, same sex couples did get married in ancient times, and, most marriages over past 2000 years were arranged or part of legal deals for land. Only in last 150 years with progression of technology and progressive politics are couples seeking marriage out of love and not necessity, shouldn’t two men or two women who were born wired to love someone of same sex be entitled for the same?
Uh, GG? I fear that you may be unclear on the concept, so here’s some help: the complaint here is that the Proposition is a violation of the Constitution. If the Prop had failed instead of narrowly prevailing, it would be discarded as just another scrap of misguided policy, and no — there would be no reason for opponents to complain. No complaint except about the fact that their rights were put to a majority vote, at all, and they had to put all that time and effort into that defense instead of something else.
Perhaps a question to ponder is whether You’d object if Your fundamental rights were put to a popular vote — rights that you maybe take for granted, like the right to get married to the person you love. I’m guessing you would — as would I.
If P-8 is overturned, will it mean that marriage will be exclusively between two humans? If so, will there be another challenge?
Why do you ask, Guy? Remember: that spaniel has to be capable of consenting to such a union with you (and spaniels are generally smarter than that).
“If P-8 is overturned, will it mean that marriage will be exclusively between two humans? If so, will there be another challenge?”
This is a good question. So yes if Prop 8 is overturned I guess marriage indeed would be exclusively between two humans. Moving beyond that, again its a legal document from the government. This legal document’s whole existence is to provide benefits for two people only (estate planning, joint tax filings, medical benefits etc.) So anyone that then challenges that and petitions for a 3 way marriage, or marriage w/ animal, etc will be denied immediately by the government. Now moving forward if they try to pull a prop 8 and put it to popular vote, it will never pass.
Scientifically beyond policy issues 99.9% of all humans in the world desire single pair bond with another human. So if Prop 8 is overturned, the gays that want to get married, get that right, and it will be end of subject. So if that .01 percent of population petition policy change to allow marriage beyond 2 people, they are going against both the hetero population and now the gay population who will both see eye to eye on value of pair bond as well as against the gov’t that logistically only accommodates those benefits for two people.
Homosexuals and the government can call it whatever they want, the rest of us know exactly what it is.
@Cardinal…concentrate and focus, surely you can follow logic.
To Duffy at the beginning of this string of comments: what if the will of the people was to ship all Jews to camps as it was in Germany in the 1930s? The will of the people prevailed in Germany at that time and resulted in the extermination of at least 6 million Jews and the deaths of 50 million more Russians, Poles, Czechs, French, British, Italians, Dutch, Belgians, North Africans, Americans and many others too numerous to mention.
@ Obsvr: My focus is fine; your syntax is a mess. Please try again.
wh0cd705123 [url=http://augmentin365.us.com/]Augmentin Pharmacy[/url] [url=http://busparonline.us.com/]buspar[/url]