Explaining Same Sex Marriage

I wish I were so optimistic. If I had to guess (always a dodgy thing when it comes to the courts), I would expect the 9th Circuit to uphold Walker's ruling, and for proponents to attempt an appeal to the Supreme Court. Several possible outcomes there:

1) The Supreme Court simply refuses to take the case, without comment. Effect: Lower court rulings would stand, but how broad their effect would be is unclear to me. Would it be just Walker's former district? Or the entire jurisdiction of the 9th circuit? Certainly not nationwide.

2) The Supreme Court dismisses the case, overturning the 9th Circuit's hypothetical ruling giving the proponents standing. The effect doesn't seem any different for this scenario than in #1 above.

3) The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. I think the outcome is likely to be a 5-4 split overturning lower court rulings and upholding Prop 8. Regardless of what the court may think about the legal issues, it ultimately is not going to stick it's neck out to nullify amendments to 30 state constitutions codifying marriage as one man, one woman. We will not win at the Supreme Court without first winning repeal of the bulk of those state amendments through public referenda.

4) The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, and decides in favor of the plaintiffs but limits the scope of the ruling to the state of California. I've heard this scenario proposed, but I can't quite figure how they'd accomplish that.

 

This insanity did not begin in 2008 and Prop 8--it began earlier with the foolishness of Mr. Newsom.

 

Was it or was it not the California SSC which legally recognised same-sex marriage in Cali in 2008?

 

None of which I dispute.

Once again, the fault is yours for not being clear. You could easily have done more to let us know that you were referring to this sort of scenario than merely putting scare quotes around the word "law".

I don't think anybody is claiming that it's not the goal, and thus there is no attempt to fool anyone on that score.

They don't use strict scrutiny to determine whether plaintiffs merit treatment as a suspect classification. Once again you've got it completely backwards. It's suspect classification that triggers strict scrutiny of the law. Without that classification, the standard of review will either be heightened scrutiny or rational basis. And there's no guarantee that the court will say Prop 8 passes even the lowest level of scrutiny - the rational basis test.

We may agree on the likely outcome, but definitely not on what the content of that ruling will be. But you're welcome to your fantasy.

 

You do recognize there are multiple posters arguing against my perspective, and only me defending it...You could cut me a tad bit of slack considering... Just saying....

My personal opinion is that it is assuredly an organized manipulation of the legal processes.

Please stop being so nit-picky--Walker argued in his ruling that homosexuals are a suspect class, did he not? SCOTUS would be looking at the law if it came to them. Jeesh. I OBVIOUSLY know it's the law being scrutinized--I've said it myself several times.

In 2008, in response to the Newsom et al. actions, the Cali supreme court decided homosexuals were a suspect class.

I've already linked to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases
On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.[3] On June 4, 2008, the court denied the request for rehearing by the same 4-3 majority while unanimously denying a petition for a stay, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[4] The Writ of Mandate directing the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and all County Clerks to comply with the ruling was issued by the Superior Court on June 19, 2008.[5].....
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer held for the plaintiffs, finding that the marriage restriction was invalid under the strict scrutiny standard based on a suspect classification of gender. In October 2006, in a two-to-one decision, the First District of the Court of Appeal of California reversed the superior court's ruling on the substantive constitutional issue, disagreeing in a number of significant respects with the lower court's analysis of the equal protection issue."[14]


THEN, in 2010. after Prop 8, Judge WALKER ruled they were a suspect class--with regard to the suit brought against the state. They have that classification in Cali.

 

I really don't understand why some people (not just you) are mincing the discussion to seemingly win some irrelevant minor detail. Methinks it's an attempt to discredit me--just as others have been condescending and rude without cause.

The marriages before '08 WERE legal--they had licences--until they were over-turned, and then lawsuits brought. But, yes--same-sex marriage was then OFFICIALLY recognized in 2008.

Yay for you... What is this victory? Winner of the parsing words award? It's irrelevant to the timeline of events as a whole and something that has been known all along... pat yourself on the back for stating the obvious.

 

The details matter, and the one's you don't seem to have a grasp of are not minor. They're very important to the legal process.

You discredit yourself by spouting off about stuff that you very clearly do not fully understand.

Just to be clear:

In August 2004 the California Supreme Court ruled that the approximately 4000 licenses issued by Newsom and others were" void from their inception and a legal nullity".

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 (passed in 2000), making it possible for same-sex couples to enjoy legal recognition of their marriages in that state.

The licenses issued between that decision and the passage of Prop 8 in November 2008 were legally recognized by the state - and continue to be. They were not overturned by Prop 8, as per the California Supreme Court's ruling in May 2009.

 

That is what I said.

 

Whining.

I will not be cutting you any slack.

An organized and perfectly legal pursuit of what we consider our due rights. Our opponents have proved as adept, perhaps even more so, in manipulating the legal process in pursuit of an animus-fueled agenda to keep us marginalized.

So don't expect any sympathy for your opinion on the matter.

This is not nit-picking. These are important legal concepts. If you don't understand them, then don't attempt to argue them.

He ruled that they were a suspect class, based on the persuasive legal arguments made by the legal counsel for the opponents of Prop 8. Those he accepted are included in support of that ruling.

They would also be looking at the facts of the case, including an analysis of how Walker reached the legal conclusions that he did.

As for what you know, I would say it's more evident what you don't know than what you do.

None of which is in dispute.

 

You appeared to be saying in the post that I quoted that the marriages between May 2008 and Nov 2008 were overturned by Prop 8.

They were not.

Again, your statements are unclear and at times appear contradictory.

 

To your hyper-sensitive nit-picking, perhaps.

 

Are we done? It appears you have nothing more of substance to argue.

 

Look, mister...you claim "[t]he details matter, and the one's you don't seem to have a grasp of are not minor." HOWEVER--the irony of that is that the single most important "detail" that matters--that is not minor in the least, but truly at the crux of the whole problem--is that you and your ilk deny the very meaning of things in an attempt to deconstruct social institutions that have been the same basic structure from before recorded history! World-wide, universally, in cultures both averse to homosexual practices, and in cultures that embraced the expression of homosexual love--MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN PEOPLES OF OPPOSITE SEXES.

How ridiculous of you to suggest I miss important details, when that FACT is ignored and undermined at every turn by you.


As for whining, I think (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing repeatedly about clarity is whining. Grow up and put your big-boy thinking cap on and use some reading comprehension skills. If you don't understand what I mean by something--ask for clarification. That is what big people do, rather than assuming the other is wrong and stupid and addressing them with condescension and vitriol.

You may come out of the corner when you're ready to behave.

 

Oh? So the deconstruction of social institutions that have been the same basic structure from before recorded history--world-wide, universally, in cultures both averse to homosexual practices, and in cultures that embraced the expression of homosexual love-- is "nothing...of substance"?

Of course you don't think so--you want to pull down meaning and substance by deconstructing societal mores and normative behavior structures.

Simply put--you don't like the definition of a freakin' word and what that is in reality.


Whatevah....

 

Appeal to tradition, insults & baiting. Got anything else?

 

Not really. It's an appeal to tradition. You need to convince me why the restrictions contained therein should be preserved. So far, you've barely started.

Big words don't improve empty arguments.

Simply put, you hold a bias against gay people, and your arguments are fueled by animus.

The definitions of words are not static. Language is in a constant state evolution right alongside societies and the laws that govern them. You can try to fight change all you like, but I see no reason to laud the effort to keep us marginalized.

You seem very angry. Perhaps you should pause to consider why the fact that I don't agree with you makes you so upset.

 

... so in your opinion, amending the constitution in this way did not cause the law to restrict marriage based on a couples sex? *shrug*

My point is he asked who would have standing to remove a sex based restriction and the example you provided seems to me to be the opposite of that -- it's an example of adding a restriction to the law. Apparently in your mind it didn't cause the law to restrict marriage to mixed sex couples... but it certainly wasn't an example of removing such a restriction.

You are complaining about mincing? wow.

​

 

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. -- Chris Scarre "Chronicles of the Roman Emperors" (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1995). Page 151​

 

Laws that restricts civil rights based on sex are not in accord with the Federal Constitution. A law that limits marriage to same sex couples restricts civil rights based on sex. Sex is a protected class.

 

In matters of law, traditions, history, the meaning of words, precident, etc.... ALL are relevant.

I don't "need to" do any such thing. In fact, the burden of proof for change from one system to another is upon the party suggesting it be changed.

Again the tired trope of "if you don't agree with me, you're a homophobe hater." Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Sure--language does fluctuate--However, a social institution is marked by it showing little or no change over time.

I'm not angry about the topic, but I must admit that your false accusation, condescending tone, nit-picky misunderstandings, and your insults have annoyed me a tad. It is not related to the topic; it's your abrasive personality that comes across in your writing that has this effect.

 

When I have been particular about the meaning of something, I have asked for clarification or taken the time to explain multiple times. I'm not buying that our "mincing" is alike.

 

There was no legal same-sex marriage in Ancient Rome. Sure there were aberrant relationships--there is nothing new under the sun--but again--there was no legal same sex marriage.

Gay marriage
Although Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded.[66]

 

Wow...again? Really?

 

​

 

No. Still.