So should the CA Supreme court be able to review Prop. 8? What implications does it have? Can/should a court "usurp" public opinion?
also:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html?mod=djemEditorialPage (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)
Since its a WSJ article it may be gone in a few days from today (11/25)
Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
See, that's not the issue at hand. The people voted for a proposition (albiet a legislativly flawed propositon) and made their intent known. Is it right or wrong for the court system to be able to counter the wants of the majority? Granted, an extrapolated 26% of the CA voting eligible population voted yes; not to mention the numerous residents of CA that are not eligible to vote.
The state constitution of CA requires equal protection under the law. That said, any right that has been granted to ONE group, cannot be restricted from another person, except by a 2/3 vote of the legislature.
So basically, that means if anyone can get married, you can't stop another group via a ballot referendum.
The current prop. 8 legislation has nothing to do with equal protection. As much as the law1 may or may not state, supported by McFadden v. Jordan2, that the propostion was addressed through the incorrect channels. What are the effects of disenfranchising the voters as well as going against an opinion that was clearly conveyed by the voters?
1http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18)
2McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 347
Quote from: ewu on November 25, 2008, 03:12:21 PM
See, that's not the issue at hand. The people voted for a proposition (albiet a legislativly flawed propositon) and made their intent known. Is it right or wrong for the court system to be able to counter the wants of the majority? Granted, an extrapolated 26% of the CA voting eligible population voted yes; not to mention the numerous residents of CA that are not eligible to vote.
I understand what the issue is, I don't care. Sometimes things just need to get done.....
Quote from: AnimeEmperor on November 25, 2008, 05:03:10 PM
I understand what the issue is, I don't care. Sometimes things just need to get done.....
The intent of the thread was to see what what people thought about the court challenging the vote of the people.
And of course things need to get done, but they must be done legally....As much as I love vigilantism and anarchy...but then I hope to make a living on people following the law:)
Our founders were careful to set up multiple branches of government and a system of checks and balances as a precaution. The courts are supposed to act as a check and balance to the legislature. It's legal, necessary, and expected for them to strike down bad laws. I still think the check and balance precaution is a great idea. It's not anarchy or vigilantism. It's a fundamental part of our government, dating all the way back to when it was originally conceived, working exactly the way it should.
See, prop 8 never touched the legislature. It was a public referendum. We do live in a democracy, albeit representative, but the law offers a route for direct democracy. What is the impact of the courts countering and reversing the vote of CA's people?
It means that you would have to amend the constitution in order for the courts to NOT reverse the public referendum every single time.
so before 2005 you were ugly? Thanks for actually reading what I have said:P
I guess that is where it lies. The court will determine that prop 8 was not correctly proposed. Prop 8 supporters will lobby to have such a revision passed through CA legislature and if it does, it will go to the vote of the people. Should it pass then the CASC will then strike it down as a violation of the equal-protection clause.
That's a whole lot of the government saying that public is wrong. Its too bad that to protect people's rights we need to disenfranchise so many voters. But, they do need to realize in the end, wrong is wrong, regardless of public opinon.
Quote from: ewu on November 26, 2008, 04:15:57 PMBTW, Steve is the only one that addressed my question in my Prop. 8 thread.
I am not a lawyer. I was under the impression that the legislature includes all entities capable of making laws. I was taught that the government breaks down into "legislative" (which creates laws), "executive" (which makes laws official), and "judicial" (which interprets the laws and resolves conflicts when they're inconsistent). I think most people share this view of the world with me because that's what most are taught in middle school and high school. This is why I assumed that voters trying to pass laws would fall under "legislative", and I assumed that everybody else is starting from this point as well.
To the best of my knowledge, I addressed your intent of the thread ("to see what people thought about the court challenging the vote of the people") directly by saying "The courts are supposed to act as a check and balance to the legislature." I thought "voters passing laws" falls under "legislature". As I'm finding out in other threads, it's very likely that you're having difficulties getting people to address your point (from your point of view) because the people simply do not have the necessary background to do so.
If voters passing laws does not count as legislation (which Webster defines as, "the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization"), then I stand corrected.
So, incorporating what you said about voters not being legislature then... The US is a representative government, not a democracy. So, the public vote is more for advisement purposes (and general entertainment) than the Word of Law. Voters aren't disenfranchised; voters were never that far enfranchised to begin with. The representative government setup was the founders knowing that the majority isn't always right.
(Edit: I believe I failed to explicitly state that, in as far as the voters given the ability to pass laws, I still think they count, in spirit, as legislature, so the original checks and balances plan of the founders still works out. Public opinion -- or any other potential player for that matter -- was never intended to have unchecked absolute authority. When they created our government, the founders already knew that they had a problem with slavery, and they had always intended to protect us from cases of absolute tyranny by the majority. Nobody is being disenfranchised here: nobody was ever so far enfranchised to begin with.)
You didn't know we were a representative government? Really? lol...I thought they taught this stuff to you guys in high school.
Quote from: Steve.Young on November 26, 2008, 09:36:58 PM
You didn't know we were a representative government? Really? lol...I thought they taught this stuff to you guys in high school.
Technically, I didn't know that ewu didn't count voter law-making as part of the legislative branch. I knew we're a representative government. I just assumed that, when voters pass laws, they counted as the "legislative" branch (as a concept). It's an irrelevant nit that voters aren't part of the strict definition of "legislature". The concept of the "legislative" part makes laws. When voters make laws, they count as part of the "legislative" part, then the checks and balances work when the courts overturn laws. When voters don't count as "legislative", they don't get to make laws.
Your post is also ad hominem and has nothing of substance to add to the topic. I thought people were supposed to be interested in "serious business" here, not in just having everybody agree with whatever the "in crowd" says. I answered the question, and I explained how my answer directly addressed the question. I do admit this group has given me an invaluable first-hand learning experience about the social dynamics of pre-WWII Germany, so I will drop the racism conversation.
... Voting != Legislative branch.
... ... ...
... ... ... ...
Quote from: PyronIkari on November 26, 2008, 10:08:44 PM
... Voting != Legislative branch.
No, voting itself is not part of the legislative branch. Popular voting itself is just for advisory and entertainment purposes. Any time laws are made, it's conceptually legislation, even if it happened to come into existence because of voters instead of the official legislature. The judicial branch acts as a check and balance against legislation, so it is all part of the original plan.
Edit: Even if laws created by voters count as a fourth branch of government, it still would not be an overriding fourth branch of government. All four branches should still act as checks and balances against each other so that no one entity gets too powerful.
Quote from: Nyxyin on November 26, 2008, 10:39:51 PMNo, voting itself is not part of the legislative branch. Popular voting itself is just for advisory and entertainment purposes. Any time laws are made, it's conceptually legislation, even if it happened to come into existence because of voters instead of the official legislature. The judicial branch acts as a check and balance against legislation, so it is all part of the original plan.
Edit: Even if laws created by voters count as a fourth branch of government, it still would not be an overriding fourth branch of government. All four branches should still act as checks and balances against each other so that no one entity gets too powerful.
First off... a question. Why, in every one of your post, do you post like you're speaking to students that don't know anything. You post basic information that we all already know... BUT NEVER ADDRESS ANYTHING ABOUT THE POINT OF WHAT WAS MADE OR BEING MADE.
Let me quote...
QuoteI didn't know that ewu didn't count voter law-making as part of the legislative branch.
Because it's not. You even answered that in your reply to me.
Quote from: PyronIkari on November 26, 2008, 10:51:15 PM
First off... a question. Why, in every one of your post, do you post like you're speaking to students that don't know anything. You post basic information that we all already know... BUT NEVER ADDRESS ANYTHING ABOUT THE POINT OF WHAT WAS MADE OR BEING MADE.
Let me quote...
QuoteI didn't know that ewu didn't count voter law-making as part of the legislative branch.
Because it's not. You even answered that in your reply to me.
The original questions are "So should the CA Supreme court be able to review Prop. 8? What implications does it have? Can/should a court 'usurp' public opinion?" and "what people thought about the court challenging the vote of the people". My response is, "There are no implications to the court reviewing Prop 8. It's not 'usurping' public opinion because the courts were always intended to check and balance the other branches of government. It has no implications other than the founders were right and are still right. The court challenging the vote of the people is always what was intended. That's what I've been trying to say all along. I've been addressing what people are saying, but people seem to need more and more simplistic explanations for people to even begin to understand.
My original position is still the same, just with a slight wording change. The edit was explicit acknowledgment of ewu's input, changing the phrasing of "legislature/legislation" to "fourth branch of government". It's an insignificant detail that doesn't render my original point invalid: the courts are a normal and intended check and balance to the other branches of government.
My posts are Ad hominem? *Shakes head* Whatever...
On another note, I suggest people go read up on what a Referendum is and what it takes to amend the State Constitution, it gives a better perspective/background on how Prop 8 works.
-_- It's not that what you say needs to be simplified...
It's that the two things HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
The molecular build of x is capable because of y, which makes the consistency more useful than a different form as found in G.
WHY DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND I LIKE CORN FLAKES?!?!??!?!
Half of the shit you say never corresponds to the other crap you say, and some how they're supposed to mean the same thing?
But you did say something correct...
You are not a lawyer.
Firstly, the voters are not a 4th branch of government, but rather who the government serve. When you vote you participate in governing the land, but you do not become a part of the government. By no means do the three branches have any role in checking or balancing the voters. However, our representative government DOES protect the public from stupid voters. Initiative (see: proposition) is a limited vestige of direct democracy that exists to offer more power to the people, but also a way for less than wise decisions to be made (see: prop 8, Sewage plant renaming).
but...BACK to the topic.....it is unfortunate that the CASC's ruling may discourage people from voting again cuz we are basically saying that their votes don't matter (btw, this is disenfranchisement, there is a wiki about it).
Quote from: ewu on November 25, 2008, 11:47:43 AM
So should the CA Supreme court be able to review Prop. 8?
Legally, I have no clue. Personally, I think so.
QuoteWhat implications does it have? Can/should a court "usurp" public opinion?
Yes; in my pessimism, I would bet that a similarly-promoted amendment declaring marriage as only between the same race, or the same religion, would easily get double-digit support. Opinion is often short-sighted, naive, ignorant, pre-formed, or malicious.
Quote from: ewu on November 27, 2008, 06:59:44 AM
but...BACK to the topic.....it is unfortunate that the CASC's ruling may discourage people from voting again cuz we are basically saying that their votes don't matter (btw, this is disenfranchisement, there is a wiki about it).
Eh, you could say the same about the voters that simply lost.
Quote from: ewu on November 27, 2008, 06:59:44 AM
but...BACK to the topic.....it is unfortunate that the CASC's ruling may discourage people from voting again cuz we are basically saying that their votes don't matter (btw, this is disenfranchisement, there is a wiki about it).
Wasn't that already demonstrated with the Bush vs Gore election being decided by
the Supreme Court? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore for more details
for those unfamiliar with that decision).
Heck, the whole electoral college is an exercise in disenfranchisement; a candidate
can win the majority of votes in a state, but lose the electoral college votes in
"all-or-nothing" states depending on the distribution of popular votes vs the voting
district boundries. I hardly think people are going to get discouraged from voting
based on that decision; otherwise, the 2000 election should have sent people fleeing
from the polls in discouragement, and we haven't exactly seen that happen--from
Wikipedia: "Voter turnout for the 2008 election was the highest in at least 40 years."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
So, if the supreme court decision overturning Gore's win in 2000 didn't discourage
voters from voting, and indeed saw them turning out in record numbers this year,
I don't think the supreme court overturning prop 8 will discourage voters in the least;
if anything we might see a similar pattern of them turning out in record numbers for
future votes.
I believe one of the duties of the Supreme Court is to defend minorities in the face of the majority. Majority rule, as has been proven, can be every bit as flawed as a single politicians views. Democracy is a nice idea, and it looks pretty on paper, but in reality, at a certain point it stops working.
So I say to hell with the majority, enforce the rules of the constitution and the principle that this nation was founded on equality. Not separate but equal.
the great thing is that we dont even have a direct democracy....totally indirect. Propositions are the only things we directly vote on....and even that has levels of abstraction...oh America, silly you!
It's arguable that Prop 8's passing was not, in fact, a true representation of untainted public opinion. Proponents for Prop 8 would be fools to overlook the influence of the Mormon and Catholic church's megabucks advertisement spending when asserting the proposition to voters. After all, the argument that media affects public opinion is the same argument people've been making to address video game violence, deviant behavior in the media, sexual objectivity, ect.
Forgot who was it that said that trying to say that books have never harmed a person is saying that books have never helped a person- but they were on the right track. Media influence cuts both ways, and Prop 8's legitimacy is affected by it.
And that is why we need a judicial court to finalize the legality of legislative processes and propositions. If the court strikes Prop 8 down, they will have done so for what they believe to be strong and lawful reasons- and frankly, historical patterns concerning civil rights would suggest they're merely following precedent in doing so.
tl;dr: Just because "The People" agreed to it doesn't mean it's the right move- or even representative of the populace's actual will or best interest.
I think the whole prop 8 think is wrong. Isn't it in the constitution that all people will be treated equally with free rights? America is just running out of people to discriminate against now...
Blacks, jews, gays and lesbians, what next? Left handed people?
I can see it now...
Prop. 18 - left handed people are not allowed to pick up writing utensils.
I think that the courts shouldn't have the power to reverse this law, much as I don't agree with it.
I think the right way to go about it is to try and change the public's opinion while you wait until the next election cycle and then try again, and keep trying until the law is the way you want it.
Quote from: mDuo13 on February 09, 2009, 04:34:50 PMI think the right way to go about it is to try and change the public's opinion while you wait until the next election cycle and then try again, and keep trying until the law is the way you want it.
The issue with 'changing the public's opinion' is really hard to do when most people that agreed on 'Yes on Prop8' didn't really know what it was about. All the money that was put into the campaign definitely worked and in the end, most people still thought it was about "teaching kids about being gay", "how gay people are in the wrong", etc.
I agree that the courts shouldn't have the power to reverse stuff like this, but in this case where the voters definitely weren't correctly informed of it, I think that this should definitely go back on the ballot. :/
Quote from: Kaura117 on January 19, 2009, 08:18:39 PM
It's arguable that Prop 8's passing was not, in fact, a true representation of untainted public opinion. Proponents for Prop 8 would be fools to overlook the influence of the Mormon and Catholic church's megabucks advertisement spending when asserting the proposition to voters.
THANK YOU.
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring that up.
Not only that, but they were organizations (religious or not) from out-of-state. So it REALLY didn't feel like California's decision (to me anyway, but I voted 'No' so of course I feel that way :P )
That whole campaign seemed like a dirty-deal from the get-go. All the fliers in the mail talking about how it'd ruin families (and all the Yes on 8 rallies with people holding signs that just read "Yes for Freedom. Yes for 8" etc T.T ).
Quote from: mDuo13 on February 09, 2009, 04:34:50 PM
I think that the courts shouldn't have the power to reverse this law, much as I don't agree with it.
I think the right way to go about it is to try and change the public's opinion while you wait until the next election cycle and then try again, and keep trying until the law is the way you want it.
And how far do you think we would've gotten with the Civil Rights movement in the sixties if we went your route instead? Not very far. A lot of the changes that took place back then were thanks to court and executive orders, not from waiting for public opinion to change.
Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed to have the 18,000 some odd marriages NULLIFIED.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce
Quote from: AnimeEmperor on November 25, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
you know i like the way this is worded, simple and clean- and DEFIANTLY to the point
my opinion is it should just be made legal as well.
Quote from: RadioactiveKitty on March 10, 2009, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: AnimeEmperor on November 25, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
you know i like the way this is worded, simple and clean- and DEFIANTLY to the point
my opinion is it should just be made legal as well.
But this thread isn't so much a "Prop. 8" debate (which has its own thread). It's a "California Supreme Court review of Prop. 8" thread. This is more about the legal process. Prop. 8 is the example he's using in this instance.
In answer to the OP, yes, the state Supreme Court should be able to review Prop. 8. That's part of their job until someone takes that power away from them.
If the LA Times November article is accurate, there's precedent:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20)
(I'm always a little leery about getting legal case history from mainstream media, but they're easy to find)
And sorry to be off topic, but this discussion did remind me that California anti-miscegenation laws were overturned only in mid-20th century. Some others on this and other threads have made comparisons between Prop. 8 with interracial marriages. Interracial marriages fought a long social and legal battle. Are we comparing the same type of legal battle?
Of course the SC should be able to review Prop8. It is how are government system works, going threw Checks and Balances.
The checks and balances are between the legislature, judicial branch, and the executive. It has nothing to do with voters and an initiative.....
I just love to see the prop 8 get overturned and destroyed, but I also hope that its done correctly so that the ignorant, bigots will have no recourse to challenge the decision.
What important to note in the article Codex found is this:
QuoteOpponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.
This way of fighting an initiative is novel, and the fight may be still longer and more tedious.
Oh right, mixing stuff up (-_-)
But its basically the same concept.
I would have never thought that I would be posting here...
When the framers of the Constitution were doing their framing, one of the big concerns was aboout tyranny of the majority (Madison in particular was concerned about large factions), where the majority opresses a minority. The national government was structured in a way that would prevent this. While states =/= national and voters =/= a branch of government, isn't it going against a lot of the reason why the government is structured how it is if things are allowed too much direct democracy without a check in place to make sure that tyranny does not happen? If the California Supreme Court was not allowed to review Prop. 8, then I would feel like our system of government was breaking down in a way. We aren't a (direct) democracy, so we shouldn't govern like one, because there is a good reason why we aren't.
I don't really know where I'm going with this thread, but there still seems to be a discrepancy in my mind that makes me doubt the surety of a CASC judgment, should they overturn the proposition.
The thing about our democracy is that we have a direct democracy element. It is the initiative/proposition process. But more so, the main challenges to prop 8 are not about "equal protection" or oppression of a minority, but procedural. Granted that such a change to the constitution is grounded in violating equal protection, the challenges are not regarding the motivations of the proposition but the process by which the proposition was put on the ballot.
I can see the conservatives now....Those damn tree hugging, flag burning, butt screwing liberals have soiled our constitution and country by exploiting another technicality.
Quote from: ewu on March 12, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
I don't really know where I'm going with this thread, but there still seems to be a discrepancy in my mind that makes me doubt the surety of a CASC judgment, should they overturn the proposition.
The thing about our democracy is that we have a direct democracy element. It is the initiative/proposition process. But more so, the main challenges to prop 8 are not about "equal protection" or oppression of a minority, but procedural. Granted that such a change to the constitution is grounded in violating equal protection, the challenges are not regarding the motivations of the proposition but the process by which the proposition was put on the ballot.
I can see the conservatives now....Those damn tree hugging, flag burning, butt screwing liberals have soiled our constitution and country by exploiting another technicality.
Of course, it could be argued that our initiative process needs a good hard looking-at right now (and is, in fact, overdue). It isn't just Prop 8. Through the initiative process, we the people of California have screwed ourselves silly, whether it's through bond after bond after bond measure that adds more to our debt, putting in budget spending restrictions that have limited our capability to adapt to changing economic realities, or putting in term limits that have left us with a legislature that is incapable of working together because they simply have no incentive to do so and no desire to as a result. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
A California constitutional convention to revamp things is overdue.
Quote from: codex biblio on March 11, 2009, 12:41:51 AM
Quote from: RadioactiveKitty on March 10, 2009, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: AnimeEmperor on November 25, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
you know i like the way this is worded, simple and clean- and DEFIANTLY to the point
my opinion is it should just be made legal as well.
But this thread isn't so much a "Prop. 8" debate (which has its own thread). It's a "California Supreme Court review of Prop. 8" thread. This is more about the legal process. Prop. 8 is the example he's using in this instance.
In answer to the OP, yes, the state Supreme Court should be able to review Prop. 8. That's part of their job until someone takes that power away from them.
If the LA Times November article is accurate, there's precedent:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20)
(I'm always a little leery about getting legal case history from mainstream media, but they're easy to find)
And sorry to be off topic, but this discussion did remind me that California anti-miscegenation laws were overturned only in mid-20th century. Some others on this and other threads have made comparisons between Prop. 8 with interracial marriages. Interracial marriages fought a long social and legal battle. Are we comparing the same type of legal battle?
true, so ok my 2 sense is they SHOULD review it, i mean a question that me and a few friends ask eachother is HOW did it pass in the first place? but either way, i guess whatever happens,... happens...
Quote from: RadioactiveKitty on March 14, 2009, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: codex biblio on March 11, 2009, 12:41:51 AM
Quote from: RadioactiveKitty on March 10, 2009, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: AnimeEmperor on November 25, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
you know i like the way this is worded, simple and clean- and DEFIANTLY to the point
my opinion is it should just be made legal as well.
But this thread isn't so much a "Prop. 8" debate (which has its own thread). It's a "California Supreme Court review of Prop. 8" thread. This is more about the legal process. Prop. 8 is the example he's using in this instance.
In answer to the OP, yes, the state Supreme Court should be able to review Prop. 8. That's part of their job until someone takes that power away from them.
If the LA Times November article is accurate, there's precedent:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20)
(I'm always a little leery about getting legal case history from mainstream media, but they're easy to find)
And sorry to be off topic, but this discussion did remind me that California anti-miscegenation laws were overturned only in mid-20th century. Some others on this and other threads have made comparisons between Prop. 8 with interracial marriages. Interracial marriages fought a long social and legal battle. Are we comparing the same type of legal battle?
true, so ok my 2 sense is they SHOULD review it, i mean a question that me and a few friends ask eachother is HOW did it pass in the first place? but either way, i guess whatever happens,... happens...
Uhh durr there was a vote and a majority of the people who voted were from the conservative people who are usually religious folk and a majority of minority voters who have their own strict value of what marriage is and what it isnt (usually based from religion i.e the bible says this) and just plain ignorant people from what I remember. I mean just because this is california it doesnt mean that it would have auto not passed. IMO the Anti-prop 8 campagin was poorly advertised such as there was no reassurance of the whole gay marriage in schools thing or the pros of not having prop 8 it left the swing voters confused and usualy some will vote in the opposite direction, I voted no on it cause of reasons stated in the prop 8 debate thread.
Im suprised that the supreme court has not updated, from what I remember they spent 3 hours discussing it. Are they even still making the final decision? also I really hope this wont nullify any marriages that happened before prop 8 was passed because that in itself is wrong.Oh well according to the LA times it looks like prop 8 may not be overturrned but the marriages that happened prior to prop 8 will still be legal
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court6-2009mar06,0,798075.story
the judges apparently are still reluctant to it man It would suck to be them right now
Quote from: Kazuko on March 14, 2009, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: RadioactiveKitty on March 14, 2009, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: codex biblio on March 11, 2009, 12:41:51 AM
Quote from: RadioactiveKitty on March 10, 2009, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: AnimeEmperor on November 25, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
you know i like the way this is worded, simple and clean- and DEFIANTLY to the point
my opinion is it should just be made legal as well.
But this thread isn't so much a "Prop. 8" debate (which has its own thread). It's a "California Supreme Court review of Prop. 8" thread. This is more about the legal process. Prop. 8 is the example he's using in this instance.
In answer to the OP, yes, the state Supreme Court should be able to review Prop. 8. That's part of their job until someone takes that power away from them.
If the LA Times November article is accurate, there's precedent:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/local/me-prop8-supreme-court20)
(I'm always a little leery about getting legal case history from mainstream media, but they're easy to find)
And sorry to be off topic, but this discussion did remind me that California anti-miscegenation laws were overturned only in mid-20th century. Some others on this and other threads have made comparisons between Prop. 8 with interracial marriages. Interracial marriages fought a long social and legal battle. Are we comparing the same type of legal battle?
true, so ok my 2 sense is they SHOULD review it, i mean a question that me and a few friends ask eachother is HOW did it pass in the first place? but either way, i guess whatever happens,... happens...
Uhh durr there was a vote and a majority of the people who voted were from the conservative people who are usually religious folk and a majority of minority voters who have their own strict value of what marriage is and what it isnt (usually based from religion i.e the bible says this) and just plain ignorant people from what I remember. I mean just because this is california it doesnt mean that it would have auto not passed. IMO the Anti-prop 8 campagin was poorly advertised such as there was no reassurance of the whole gay marriage in schools thing or the pros of not having prop 8 it left the swing voters confused and usualy some will vote in the opposite direction, I voted no on it cause of reasons stated in the prop 8 debate thread.
Im suprised that the supreme court has not updated, from what I remember they spent 3 hours discussing it. Are they even still making the final decision? also I really hope this wont nullify any marriages that happened before prop 8 was passed because that in itself is wrong.
Oh well according to the LA times it looks like prop 8 may not be overturrned but the marriages that happened prior to prop 8 will still be legal
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court6-2009mar06,0,798075.story
the judges apparently are still reluctant to it man It would suck to be them right now
ah she is right, i mean most conservatives ARE religious...
NOT TO SAY THAT ALL ARE! i know of a few who are not lol. but still, i dont think that it will be much differant, i mean the best the Supreme court will do is put it on the ballot. what would be an interesting outcome is for EVERYONE WHO CAN vote (meaning people 18 and over) to vote on what they believe. and THAN see the outcome. than prop 8 may again or MAY NOT pass. idk. it would be a very interesting outcome.
you know the asian democratic vote was mainly for 8....and I think there was the "I was liberal enough to vote for a black man, its OK to not vote for the gay men."
WAAAOOOOW Pyron Is VICIOUS! >_< ANYHOO yeah i think it should be reviewed.
QUESTION! what about the people that DID get married is their marriage now void from that? or does California still see them as married? or *wink wink* "married"