John Adams Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) My guess is that the court doesn't split on this. The right wing justices don't want to be on what is clearly the wrong side of this debate and will strike down prop 8, maybe agreeing in some concurring opinion that dances around procedurally to reach that conclusion. When prop 8 passed in 2008, only 2 states permitted gay marriage. Now it's 12 and DC. Back in 2008, a lot of people thought this was a stupid political move to force this issue and that the American people were going to entrench and this would all set gay marriage back. Edited June 26, 2013 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Rulings are in. DOMA - out. Prop 8 - punt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 DOMA is DEAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Prop 8 - punt. That was my understanding first but now I'm hearing they've overturned prop 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 That was my understanding first but now I'm hearing they've overturned prop 8? They declined to hear the case, meaning the most recent federal court ruling overturning Prop 8 still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) They declined to hear the case, meaning the most recent federal court ruling overturning Prop 8 still stands. I was just coming back to post that I got it. Thanks. BTW the timing of this is interesting. It's gay pride weekend in SF this weekend. I am so glad I no longer live in the city. It's going to be a zoo. Edited June 26, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 I was just coming back to post that I got it. Thanks. BTW the timing of this is interesting. It's gay pride weekend in SF this weekend. I am so glad I no longer live in the city. It's going to be a zoo. When is it not a zoo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 When is it not a zoo? What are you doing on PPP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) This was an enormous day for legal standing. DOMA went off on standing (honstly I think a lot of people on this board, based on what I've seen, would love Scalia's dissent on Standing...starts quoting Madison and give lots of grandiose rhetoric on separation of powers) and prop 8 case had none! haha Edited June 26, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 What are you doing on PPP? A rare appearance I know. I didn't feel like watching any news today, but I figured PPP would have something on this issue, since it was coming down this week. Now I just have to wait until my state of California has to vote on gay marriage.....again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) This is possibly the end of people in this nation having any say whatsoever in government... Prop 8 was legally voted on by the people of CA, as an amendment to their constitution... The gov and AG of the state, refused to defend it, and it was thrown out by the lower courts as unconstitutional.... and amendment??? as unconstitutional???? Also, since it was a state issue, under what pretense should the supremes have even been presented the case? The US Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about marriage, so by that alone, it is a power left to the states, or to the people of the states.... DOMA... grasping at straws by the supremes... Has anyone else read the summary by Kennedy?? He believes it's unconstitutional based on the equal rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment?? WHAT????? Someone help me out here..... What the $#%@ does the 5th have to so with equality??? But then again, THIS is a STATE issue, since nothing in the Constitution grant fed authority over it... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation - See more at: http://constitution....h.38YhriP3.dpuf Edited June 27, 2013 by Cinga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) This is possibly the end of people in this nation having any say whatsoever in government... Prop 8 was legally voted on by the people of CA, as an amendment to their constitution... The gov and AG of the state, refused to defend it, and it was thrown out by the lower courts as unconstitutional.... and amendment??? as unconstitutional???? Also, since it was a state issue, under what pretense should the supremes have even been presented the case? The US Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about marriage, so by that alone, it is a power left to the states, or to the people of the states.... DOMA... grasping at straws by the supremes... Has anyone else read the summary by Kennedy?? He believes it's unconstitutional based on the equal rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment?? WHAT????? Someone help me out here..... What the $#%@ does the 5th have to so with equality??? But then again, THIS is a STATE issue, since nothing in the Constitution grant fed authority over it... - See more at: http://constitution....h.38YhriP3.dpuf Do some wiki on the 5th amendment and the 14 amendment and the interplay if you are actually curious. The short of it is that life, liberty, and property w/ out due process of law carries with it an implicit equal protection guarantee. Edited June 27, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Do some wiki on the 5th amendment and the 14 amendment and the interplay if you are actually curious. The short of it is that life, liberty, and property w/ out due process of law carries with it an implicit equal protection guarantee. yes the 14th does but I haven't seen it so far in the brief, only the 5th which HAS NOTHING to do with equality. I'll keep reading, 77 pages, and get back to you if I see it.... ... but this is NOT an equal protection... This was a gay couple that lived together, and one had to pay tax after the death of another, not covered by the spouse exemption (though limited) for married people.... Now, does this also mean that if my brother lives with me his whole life, and I die, he should also qualify under this and not have to pay tax under what I leave??? How 'bout my dog??? Isn't that also "equal" protection under this same argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 yes the 14th does but I haven't seen it so far in the brief, only the 5th which HAS NOTHING to do with equality. I'll keep reading, 77 pages, and get back to you if I see it.... ... but this is NOT an equal protection... This was a gay couple that lived together, and one had to pay tax after the death of another, not covered by the spouse exemption (though limited) for married people.... Now, does this also mean that if my brother lives with me his whole life, and I die, he should also qualify under this and not have to pay tax under what I leave??? How 'bout my dog??? Isn't that also "equal" protection under this same argument? The 5th applies to the Feds...14th to the states...that's why the 5th...and as I said above there is an implicit equal protection right under the fifth that is roughly equivalent to the 14ths...it has quite a bit of case law and history on it so if you wanted to know how to analyze those questions all you have to do is read up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 27, 2013 Author Share Posted June 27, 2013 This is possibly the end of people in this nation having any say whatsoever in government... Prop 8 was legally voted on by the people of CA, as an amendment to their constitution... The gov and AG of the state, refused to defend it, and it was thrown out by the lower courts as unconstitutional.... and amendment??? as unconstitutional???? Also, since it was a state issue, under what pretense should the supremes have even been presented the case? The US Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about marriage, so by that alone, it is a power left to the states, or to the people of the states.... DOMA... grasping at straws by the supremes... Has anyone else read the summary by Kennedy?? He believes it's unconstitutional based on the equal rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment?? WHAT????? Someone help me out here..... What the $#%@ does the 5th have to so with equality??? But then again, THIS is a STATE issue, since nothing in the Constitution grant fed authority over it... - See more at: http://constitution....h.38YhriP3.dpuf The 10th amendment died a looooong time ago son. Call something a commerce clause issue and the fed govt can control it. And relax. This issue is way over. Gay marriage is a done deal. This case didn't contribute to the erosion of states rights any more than a drop of water forms a river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) Gay marriage decision comming soon If he makes you happy, I say go for it Edited June 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) So what does this mean for ballot initiatives? California refuses to defend Prop 8 and private citizens don't have the standing to defend it...so any ballot initiative that a state's government doesn't like can just wither away? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a ballot initiative process? If so, I can't say I mind. Direct democracy isn't my favorite form of government. Edited June 27, 2013 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 So what does this mean for ballot initiatives? California refuses to defend Prop 8 and private citizens don't have the standing to defend it...so any ballot initiative that a state's government doesn't like can just wither away? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a ballot initiative process? If so, I can't say I mind. Direct democracy isn't my favorite form of government. As a Californian between this and prop 187 (look it up) I'm about to give up. Regardless of how you feel about the ruling or how you voted initially (I voted against prop 8) what this is telling us is that this is not a democracy where the people's vote matters. Prop 8 was voted in and many people didn't like it. So they found a judge (who just happened to be in a same sex relationship) to overrule the vote. It's a !@#$ing joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 As a Californian between this and prop 187 (look it up) I'm about to give up. Regardless of how you feel about the ruling or how you voted initially (I voted against prop 8) what this is telling us is that this is not a democracy where the people's vote matters. Prop 8 was voted in and many people didn't like it. So they found a judge (who just happened to be in a same sex relationship) to overrule the vote. It's a !@#$ing joke. Rhode Island's legislature did away with binding ballot initiatives in order to shed the political ramifications of doing exactly that. I suspect that's what California will wind up doing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts