NationStates Jolt Archive

Not satisfied with his witch-hunt against President Clinton, his representation of Blackwater, and his "fine" work in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, Kenneth Starr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr) is now working for the homophobes. NOTE: The bastard is arguing that the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages in California are no longer valid.

Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html)

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead council for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole (like his clients in this case).

*snip*
I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole.
For once, I agree with you.

Not satisfied with his witch-hunt against President Clinton, his representation of Blackwater, and his "fine" work in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, Kenneth Starr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr) is now working for the homophobes.

Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html)

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead council for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole.

I guess he burned through the advance royalties on the book deal, or something, or maybe he feels he needs to renew his fifteen minutes.

I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole.

would be interesting to see how this turns out.

The need for the Yes on 8 crowd to invalidate all the gay marriages that were legally performed is absolutely, unequivocally disgusting. There is no defense for what they are attempting to do. It is not enough for them to merely win on Prop 8; they feel the need to further attack gay people in a completely vindictive way. Totally appalling.

Even though we're losing the "war on terrorism", I suppose it's some consolation to the religious right that we're apparently winning the war on queers.

That's fine. We've got the element of surprise. After all, what could be more surprising than the first battalion transvestite brigade? /eddie izzard

Even though we're losing the "war on terrorism", I suppose it's some consolation to the religious right that we're apparently winning the war on queers.

That's fine. We've got the element of surprise. After all, what could be more surprising than the first battalion transvestite brigade? /eddie izzard
Well, they aren't really winning it...

Good lord, isn't there some hole he can curl up in with his prurient interests? Someone toss him a stained dress... he may lose interest.

Good lord, isn't there some hole he can curl up in with his prurient interests? Someone toss him a stained dress... he may lose interest.

I have a ball of aluminum foil, will that work?

As for Starr, hasn't he found more constructive things to do by now?

I have a ball of aluminum foil, will that work?

As for Starr, hasn't he found more constructive things to do by now?

Are there bodily fluids on the ball?

(I hope that is the last time that I ever ask that specific question.)

Why do you care what case he takes? If his case has merits his client will win, if not then his client will lose. Im confused as to why your hating a lawyer that is doing his job?

Not satisfied with his witch-hunt against President Clinton, his representation of Blackwater, and his "fine" work in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, Kenneth Starr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr) is now working for the homophobes. NOTE: The bastard is arguing that the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages in California are no longer valid.

I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole (like his clients in this case).

He's representing the wishes of 52% of California voters, right or wrong. Can't fault him for that, necessarily. It's also perfectly understandable that the pro-8 groups wouldn't want Moonbeam defending their interests - the article seems to make those groups' lack of "trust" out to be something sinister, but it would be foolish *not* to bring in someone who actually favors their position, no?

He's representing the wishes of 52% of California voters, right or wrong. Can't fault him for that, necessarily. It's also perfectly understandable that the pro-8 groups wouldn't want Moonbeam defending their interests - the article seems to make those groups' lack of "trust" out to be something sinister, but it would be foolish *not* to bring in someone who actually favors their position, no?
Actually, we can fault him for it.

A) He has discretion as to what cases he takes. He was under no obligation to get involved in this matter. There is nothing left in it to do but be dicks to the 18,000 already married gay people in California. Being a dick is all he has to do, and he has chosen to do it. Ergo -- he's a dick.

B) Kindly do not waste our time with that "he's representing 52% percent of CA voters" bull, unless you feel like defending against arguments of "what if 52% of CA voters wanted to institute slavery, would that be okay, huh, huh?" The majority do not get to strip the minority of their rights as citizens. If the majority do that, then the majority are in the wrong. Also, I'd like to point out that 52% isn't much of a majority to be bullying people with. Though it is telling that we get the bullshit defense of this bullshit political move already on page 1.

C) Their motives for picking Starr may not be sinister -- or at least too obvious to be sinister -- but their motives for taking this legal action at all are very sinister, despite being obvious.

Why do you care what case he takes? If his case has merits his client will win, if not then his client will lose. Im confused as to why your hating a lawyer that is doing his job?

You don't know who Kenneth Starr is do you?

Actually, we can fault him for it.

A) He has discretion as to what cases he takes. He was under no obligation to get involved in this matter. There is nothing left in it to do but be dicks to the 18,000 already married gay people in California. Being a dick is all he has to do, and he has chosen to do it. Ergo -- he's a dick.

It's a high-profile case. That's reason enough for most of the lawyers you see on t.v. today (the Allreds, Mesereaus, etc.). He may even believe in the cause - who knows? He's not obligated to do it, but that isn't to say that he's doing it strictly to be a 'dick.' To be sure, a gay marriage ban is going to leave those 18,000 high and dry. In that respect, he may be being a dick (seen from the perspective of someone who thinks Prop. 8 *isn't* beneficial, naturally) but is he more of a dick than the 52% who voted for the proposition to begin with? No one can claim ignorance that the ban would affect people's lives, marriage plans, etc. So the 52% ought to be equally accountable if that's the case.

B) Kindly do not waste our time with that "he's representing 52% percent of CA voters" bull, unless you feel like defending against arguments of "what if 52% of CA voters wanted to institute slavery, would that be okay, huh, huh?" The majority do not get to strip the minority of their rights as citizens. If the majority do that, then the majority are in the wrong. Also, I'd like to point out that 52% isn't much of a majority to be bullying people with. Though it is telling that we get the bullshit defense of this bullshit political move already on page 1.

That he's representing those 52% is a matter of record. I didn't say that the majority should be deferred to in all cases. We wouldn't need much of a judiciary if that were the case, would we?

C) Their motives for picking Starr may not be sinister -- or at least too obvious to be sinister -- but their motives for taking this legal action at all are very sinister, despite being obvious.

They have their agenda, and want the best advocate they can buy. It's usually the zealots who stir things up on either side of the aisle. Some of them are insufferable, sure. We've gained constitutional rights from complete scumbags in the past (say, Miranda v. Arizona, Illinois Nazis, etc.) - it's best to look at the issue, rather than the motivation.

Why do you care what case he takes? If his case has merits his client will win, if not then his client will lose. Im confused as to why your hating a lawyer that is doing his job?

The problem here is that this was NOT part of the original proposition, this is simply a fuck you to all the gay couples who were already married legally. Furthermore, this is a sad, blatant case of tyranny by majority.
What a depressing state of affairs it is that something like this could happen.

It's a high-profile case. That's reason enough for most of the lawyers you see on t.v. today (the Allreds, Mesereaus, etc.).
This is the kind of shallow, thoughtless "cynicism" that creates an urge to just write off the one saying such things. Your opening defense of your comments is one that essentially says that you are not giving real thought to this matter at all, just cavalierly saying something catty about lawyers.

He may even believe in the cause - who knows? He's not obligated to do it, but that isn't to say that he's doing it strictly to be a 'dick.' To be sure, a gay marriage ban is going to leave those 18,000 high and dry. In that respect, he may be being a dick (seen from the perspective of someone who thinks Prop. 8 *isn't* beneficial, naturally) but is he more of a dick than the 52% who voted for the proposition to begin with? No one can claim ignorance that the ban would affect people's lives, marriage plans, etc. So the 52% ought to be equally accountable if that's the case.
Not being MORE of a dick than his clients does not mean that he's not being a dick, nor does it excuse his dickishness. So as soon as you can find a post in which I say nicer things about that 52% than I do about Ken Starr, you can make something of this nonsense. Until then...you're not showing much more depth than your opening comment did.

That he's representing those 52% is a matter of record. I didn't say that the majority should be deferred to in all cases. We wouldn't need much of a judiciary if that were the case, would we?
Backpedaling already? If you do not presume that the statistic "52% of California voters" gives Ken Starr's action more merit than it would have otherwise, why bother to mention it at all?

They have their agenda, and want the best advocate they can buy. It's usually the zealots who stir things up on either side of the aisle. Some of them are insufferable, sure. We've gained constitutional rights from complete scumbags in the past (say, Miranda v. Arizona, Illinois Nazis, etc.) - it's best to look at the issue, rather than the motivation.
In other words, you'd like to change the subject? Is that because you have nothing left with which to continue the line of argument you originally opened? Sorry but, at this point, your comments are so empty, they are little more than spam.

This is the kind of shallow, thoughtless "cynicism" that creates an urge to just write off the one saying such things. Your opening defense of your comments is one that essentially says that you are not giving real thought to this matter at all, just cavalierly saying something catty about lawyers.

That he might see his job as simply another job, or might be taking it to advance his career is a perfectly plausible alternative hypothesis to the 'being a dick' theory. I cited an extreme because a few similarities sprang to mind quickly - blame the representativeness heuristic.

Not being MORE of a dick than his clients does not mean that he's not being a dick, nor does it excuse his dickishness. So as soon as you can find a post in which I say nicer things about that 52% than I do about Ken Starr, you can make something of this nonsense. Until then...you're not showing much more depth than your opening comment did.

If you don't think Ken Starr is more of a dick than the rest of us (the collective "us"- Californians), then it makes less sense to single him out for criticism. Besides, he probably thinks he's saving souls - ain't that sweet? He probably thinks he's on the side of morality, justice, and all things warm and fuzzy. How can you not like him? :tongue:

Backpedaling already? If you do not presume that the statistic "52% of California voters" gives Ken Starr's action more merit than it would have otherwise, why bother to mention it at all?

Perspective. The fact that those 52% wanted the thing he's defending adds some. Makes him less of an asshole, quite possibly.

In other words, you'd like to change the subject? Is that because you have nothing left with which to continue the line of argument you originally opened? Sorry but, at this point, your comments are so empty, they are little more than spam.

I'm comfortable with the subject. It's business as usual - our 'adversarial' system. The issue is more important than the agenda behind it, at least insofar as it affects third parties (us).

I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole (like his clients in this case).

Agreed. Prop 8 is bad enough, but trying to invalidate the marriages that have already begun is pure vindictiveness.

That he might see his job as simply another job, or might be taking it to advance his career is a perfectly plausible alternative hypothesis to the 'being a dick' theory. I cited an extreme because a few similarities sprang to mind quickly - blame the representativeness heuristic.

Someone who would take this particular case to advance his career is still "being a dick".

Someone who would take this particular case to advance his career is still "being a dick".

From your (and my, as it happens) perspective, sure. He's hurting people - whether it's one or 18,000, wrong is wrong. But it's still possible, even likely, that he sees his advocacy of this agenda (this *particular* case) as being for the greater good, or as a stepping stone to something better for himself while having either a neutral or positive incidental effect on the rest of us. It's also possible he's just being an ass, but not certain.

From your (and my, as it happens) perspective, sure. He's hurting people - whether it's one or 18,000, wrong is wrong. But it's still possible, even likely, that he sees his advocacy of this agenda (this *particular* case) as being for the greater good, or as a stepping stone to something better for himself while having either a neutral or positive incidental effect on the rest of us. It's also possible he's just being an ass, but not certain.

Of course, it's quite possible to think you're doing something for the greater good and still be a dick, if your actions are dickish.

Of course, it's quite possible to think you're doing something for the greater good and still be a dick, if your actions are dickish.

Ah, but what are earthly consequences compared with the joy of meeting God and Jesus and the holy ghost and grandma? If the "greater good" is great enough, a person might never see that they're being a dick - what constitutes being a dick probably can't even be said objectively, even if we can stipulate a reasonable sort of community standard for this forum. :)

That he might see his job as simply another job, or might be taking it to advance his career is a perfectly plausible alternative hypothesis to the 'being a dick' theory. I cited an extreme because a few similarities sprang to mind quickly - blame the representativeness heuristic.
It is rare for you to get on my nerves right out of the gate, as it were, but you sure are doing it this time. If we follow your "reasoning" we may as well argue that it's possible that he's a space alien super-bunny sent here to buy groceries who just got caught up in this turmoil when he innocently tried to figure out the price of eggs in California.

I'm sorry, but my bullshit tolerance has been worn down to nothing, and I am not in the mood to humor you with your "representativeness heuristic." That phrase alone makes me want to throw both shoes at you for wasting my time on an issue that actually is important to the real lives of real people.

If you don't think Ken Starr is more of a dick than the rest of us (the collective "us"- Californians), then it makes less sense to single him out for criticism. Besides, he probably thinks he's saving souls - ain't that sweet? He probably thinks he's on the side of morality, justice, and all things warm and fuzzy. How can you not like him? :tongue:
And I'm also sorry, but you are not being charming or amusing, and you are not succeeding in defusing my annoyance. And you can take your "us" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine -- not because it's offensive or dumb but just because it bears absolutely no relationship nor does it logically arise out of anything that has been said so far.

If you're just going to make such lame jokes -- if you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation, then I'll write you off right now.

Perspective. The fact that those 52% wanted the thing he's defending adds some. Makes him less of an asshole, quite possibly.
No, it doesn't. Not even possibly. Because they are just as big assholes as he is. Adding more assholes to the mix does not lessen the asshole quotient. But apparently, it can inspire yet more assholery.

I'm comfortable with the subject. It's business as usual - our 'adversarial' system. The issue is more important than the agenda behind it, at least insofar as it affects third parties (us).
Again with that "us." Seriously, TPC, do not ever presume to speak for me or include me in your vague and formless generalizations, even by inference, thanks. Even if you're trying to invent some common ground or something -- just don't.

It is rare for you to get on my nerves right out of the gate, as it were, but you sure are doing it this time. If we follow your "reasoning" we may as well argue that it's possible that he's a space alien super-bunny sent here to buy groceries who just got caught up in this turmoil when he innocently tried to figure out the price of eggs in California.

I'm sorry, but my bullshit tolerance has been worn down to nothing, and I am not in the mood to humor you with your "representativeness heuristic." That phrase alone makes me want to throw both shoes at you for wasting my time on an issue that actually is important to the real lives of real people.Oh, yeah, she totally just went there. :D :p

It is rare for you to get on my nerves right out of the gate, as it were, but you sure are doing it this time. If we follow your "reasoning" we may as well argue that it's possible that he's a space alien super-bunny sent here to buy groceries who just got caught up in this turmoil when he innocently tried to figure out the price of eggs in California.

I'm sorry, but my bullshit tolerance has been worn down to nothing, and I am not in the mood to humor you with your "representativeness heuristic." That phrase alone makes me want to throw both shoes at you for wasting my time on an issue that actually is important to the real lives of real people.

I'm sorry that your nerves even have to figure into this - that wasn't the object at all. I feel your pain (no Clinton-era pun intended) at being in the righteous minority on an issue that clearly has some significant meaning to you, but beyond that I don't really see where you're coming from.

And I'm also sorry, but you are not being charming or amusing, and you are not succeeding in defusing my annoyance. And you can take your "us" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine -- not because it's offensive or dumb but just because it bears absolutely no relationship nor does it logically arise out of anything that has been said so far.

If you're just going to make such lame jokes -- if you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation, then I'll write you off right now.

"We" as a state passed prop. 8. That's where the "us" comes in. I wasn't making any point of using "us" over, say "it" (California) or "they" (Californians). The idea - the fact - that people believe and do silly things in the name of the greater good is no joke, even if the individuals who do it may be laughable.

No, it doesn't. Not even possibly. Because they are just as big assholes as he is. Adding more assholes to the mix does not lessen the asshole quotient. But apparently, it can inspire yet more assholery.

As I said earlier, I don't see the will of the majority as belonging on a pedestal, but it *is* something to be considered as far as governance is concerned.

Again with that "us." Seriously, TPC, do not ever presume to speak for me or include me in your vague and formless generalizations, even by inference, thanks.

Unless you're directly involved in the appeal, you're a third party - someone affected by the decision, but not involved in the process. Again, that's the extent of it.

Oh, yeah, she totally just went there. :D :p

Eh. I find it (the 'phrase') useful. Feel free not to use it. :tongue:

Edit: come to think of it, I'd be interested to hear how using it could even be objectionable in itself, really. But that's small pickles.

The problem here is that this was NOT part of the original proposition, this is simply a fuck you to all the gay couples who were already married legally.
Unfortunately, yes it is. The proposition simply says that same sex marriages are not valid. It doesn't distinguish between future and past marriages, they're all invalid, if the proposition is upheld.

Oh, yeah, she totally just went there. :D :p
You bet, brother. It's a new culture fad. :D All the hipsters are doing it.

I'm sorry that your nerves even have to figure into this - that wasn't the object at all. I feel your pain (no Clinton-era pun intended) at being in the righteous minority on an issue that clearly has some significant meaning to you, but beyond that I don't really see where you're coming from.
There is no content in the above.

"We" as a state passed prop. 8. That's where the "us" comes in. I wasn't making any point of using "us" over, say "it" (California) or "they" (Californians). The idea - the fact - that people believe and do silly things in the name of the greater good is no joke, even if the individuals who do it may be laughable.
More content-free bullshit, and this time it's also redundant as the lack of weight in a mere 52% majority was already dealt with. So not only are you not bothering to make a real point, you are not bothering to keep track of the conversation, either. This inspires me to follow your example and stop talking to you.

As I said earlier, I don't see the will of the majority as belonging on a pedestal, but it *is* something to be considered as far as governance is concerned.
More shallow, empty BS. Another content-free remark.

Unless you're directly involved in the appeal, you're a third party - someone affected by the decision, but not involved in the process. Again, that's the extent of it.
And yet more lack of substance.

Eh. I find it (the 'phrase') useful. Feel free not to use it. :tongue:
I'll bet you do, for filling up all your spam statements. "Representativeness" is not a word, and your comments here are not an argument.

I'm done with you. 'Bye.

Unfortunately, yes it is. The proposition simply says that same sex marriages are not valid. It doesn't distinguish between future and past marriages, they're all invalid, if the proposition is upheld.
Or unless the state chooses to grandfather the existing marriages. It is not a foregone conclusion that a law will be applied retroactively. That's why these dicks are taking this action now, to try to make it apply retroactively.

Eh. I find it (the 'phrase') useful. Feel free not to use it. :tongue:

Edit: come to think of it, I'd be interested to hear how using it could even be objectionable in itself, really. But that's small pickles.
It is objectionable because it is meaningless. It has no effect but obfuscation of your comments. It is a conversation killer. It killed any conversation you could have had with me, for instance.

You bet, brother. It's a new culture fad. :D All the hipsters are doing it.Even for profit (http://shop.cafepress.com/bush-shoe?CMP=CJ-CLICK-10463747). ;)

There is no content in the above.

There wasn't a corollary to my original argument. I was only curious as to why you seemed to be affronted. It didn't seem appropriate, and we (yes, again with the "we" ;)) haven't even argued in the past unless you've got puppets.

"Representativeness" is not a word, and your comments here are not an argument.

I'm done with you. 'Bye.

It is a word, and I stand by my argument, etc., etc. but no hard feelings - good night.

For anyone else, though:

three seconds' time + google ---> (yields):

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/representativeness_heuristic.htm

There wasn't a corollary to my original argument. I was only curious as to why you seemed to be affronted. It didn't seem appropriate, and we (yes, again with the "we" ;)) haven't even argued in the past unless you've got puppets.



It is a word, and I stand by my argument, etc., etc. but no hard feelings - good night.

For anyone else, though:

three seconds' time + google ---> (yields):

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/representativeness_heuristic.htm
I don't care who uses the bullshit, it's still bullshit, as well as an abuse of the language. "Representativeness" is not a word, and those august psychology professionals can kiss my ass if they say otherwise.

And you have a poor memory. We have shared threads before and sometimes argued and more often progressed peacefully. But not tonight. Tonight, you came in making glib and pretentious comments, adding nothing of substance to the debate but merely sidetracking it into a short episode of the "TPC Shows Off His 'Wit'" show.

This conversation is over. I'm sure other people will be glad to be entertained by you.

Do you think that Prop 8 was an amendment or do you agree with gay activists that it amounts to a 100% revision of the constitution?

I lean toward an simple amendment of one section. Article 1 of the constitution in question says nothing about marriage being a right for anyone. The State Supreme Court appears to have based its gay marriage decision off the valid concept that the state must treat all persons equally under the law. That is in the Declaration of Rights, but no where in the Declaration of Rights is there a specific right to marry, whether you are gay or straight. Otherwise, all those guys who could not find chicks to marry would be able to sue the state to force it to find them wives and even lonely women would be able to sue the state.

The Gays seem to be asking for a right that even the Heterosexuals in the state don't have. Why should they have rights that don't apply to me as a straight single person?
I don't agree with Jerry Brown that the people can't change the Constitution.
They are also wrong that the people can't change the constitution. The initiative process, provided for by the state Constitution gives the people the right to change the Constitution via the initiative process. Otherwise, the whole document becomes invalidated and California is a state without a valid Constitution.
A revision is when the whole document is changed. In Prop 8 we have only one section of a document being altered, not the entire document itself. Conventions are not for amending the Constitution but for completely replacing it.
I agree with Star that in the American system of government that judges are required to bow to the will of the people when they express it as a Constitutional Amendment. In most states, amendments cannot be done by simple initiative process but in California, the Constitution specifically states that all parts of the Constitution itself are open to popular amendment via the initiative process.
The Declaration of Rights is found in Article II, from my understanding. I would note that either Article II or Article I also states that it is unconstitutional to speak any language other English when you are engaged in official government business. Hence many California Education officials from the Superintendent down to your local teachers are violating the Constitution every time they speak Spanish on school time. They are also in violation when they encourage their students to speak it on school time. Perhaps then, because of this English only clause, Article II (or again I) is unconstitutional hence making the entire Constitution unconstitutional because it "violates itself".
Afterall, an English only clause would appear to violate the Free Speech clause of Article II.
What the Court had previously said is that the marriage can't be barred with a simple initiative statute. The difference in this case is that Prop 8 is not a initiative statute, it's a change to the Constitution itself. The Court is going to hardpressed to overturn and if they do, it is likely to result in a couple of things:

1. The recall of the entire State Supreme Court. The Constitution does allow the people to remove members of the Supreme Court through the recall process. Conversely, the legislature could remove them via the impeachment process.

2. The state government, already facing severe strains because of the financial crises and partisan derailment could very well collapse leaving Californians without any state government.

In the latter case, the state would then fall under the direct rule of the federal govenrment until such time as a new state Constitution is adopted.

Actually, we can fault him for it.

A) He has discretion as to what cases he takes. He was under no obligation to get involved in this matter. There is nothing left in it to do but be dicks to the 18,000 already married gay people in California. Being a dick is all he has to do, and he has chosen to do it. Ergo -- he's a dick.

B) Kindly do not waste our time with that "he's representing 52% percent of CA voters" bull, unless you feel like defending against arguments of "what if 52% of CA voters wanted to institute slavery, would that be okay, huh, huh?" The majority do not get to strip the minority of their rights as citizens. If the majority do that, then the majority are in the wrong. Also, I'd like to point out that 52% isn't much of a majority to be bullying people with. Though it is telling that we get the bullshit defense of this bullshit political move already on page 1.

C) Their motives for picking Starr may not be sinister -- or at least too obvious to be sinister -- but their motives for taking this legal action at all are very sinister, despite being obvious.


There is something a miss with your statement.
The federal Constitution specifically prohibits slavery. Hence any change to the State Constitution that legalizes slavery would be null and void because it conflicts with the federal constitution.
As you know, when the state conflicts with federal the federal takes priority.
As with the state constitution, the federal constitution no where grants a right to marrry to anyone.
Hence Prop 8 does not even violate the federal Constitution.
Only when you specifically state that straight people have a right to be married do you then also have to give that right to gays as well. But such a clause would be impossible to enforce because there are so many undesirable single people out there. You would end up violating someone's right to free association by having to force them into marriages.
It would be a national version of the FLDS. But with government backing. Scary. Makes me shudder.

There is something a miss with your statement.
The federal Constitution specifically prohibits slavery. Hence any change to the State Constitution that legalizes slavery would be null and void because it conflicts with the federal constitution.
As you know, when the state conflicts with federal the federal takes priority.
As with the state constitution, the federal constitution no where grants a right to marrry to anyone.
Hence Prop 8 does not even violate the federal Constitution.
Only when you specifically state that straight people have a right to be married do you then also have to give that right to gays as well. But such a clause would be impossible to enforce because there are so many undesirable single people out there. You would end up violating someone's right to free association by having to force them into marriages.
It would be a national version of the FLDS. But with government backing. Scary. Makes me shudder.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Prop 8 denies that. Yes, yes, I know you posted a great big post all about how it doesn't deny equal protection, but you are wrong. As it is 2am here, I will wait until tomorrow to get into taking that apart, unless one of our resident lawyers gets in first.

And your closing comments about forced marriages are just ridiculous.

Or unless the state chooses to grandfather the existing marriages. It is not a foregone conclusion that a law will be applied retroactively. That's why these dicks are taking this action now, to try to make it apply retroactively.

At this point only the State Supreme Court can say if the Prop 8 is retroactive. Nothing was said in the amendment about when it goes into effect so it would, normally, go into effect the same way any other amendment would.

If the voters wanted a say in when Prop 8 applied, they would have included it in the initiative themselves but they overlooked it.

Conversely, the State Court could decide that it does retroactively nullify all marriages that occurred in the state before its passage. This means it would nullify not only California gay marriages but the marriages of the country's other gays who happened to have had their marrieages performed in the state.

Conversely, just as the amendment process was used to ban gay marriage it can also be used to legalize it. Regrettably, instead of trying to change it to legalize gay marriage, gay advocates seem intent on overturning the state's governing document as a whole. Why is this?

The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Prop 8 denies that. Yes, yes, I know you posted a great big post all about how it doesn't deny equal protection, but you are wrong. As it is 2am here, I will wait until tomorrow to get into taking that apart, unless one of our resident lawyers gets in first.

And your closing comments about forced marriages are just ridiculous.

The federal Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law but it this lause only applies to religion and race. It does not apply to sexual orientation. For it to apply to sexual orientation you would need to amend the federal constitution itself. I could be wrong but it seems you are referring to the 14th amendment???? The 14th amendment does not even mention sexual orientation as being protected.


Whether federal or state, any efforts to undo Prop 8 would require another Constitutional amendment.

For the record, I am not opposed to gay marriage. I just insist that they go about it the right way. Go through process just like everyone else. Blacks and Women got rights not by trying to overthrow the system but gaining a change to the Constitution that granted them those rights. I see no reason why gays can't go through the same process.
It is concievable that an amendment reversing Prop 8 would pass because Californians tend to vote for everything you see on the ballot.

For the record, I am not opposed to gay marriage. I just insist that they go about it the right way. Go through process just like everyone else. Blacks and Women got rights not by trying to overthrow the system but gaining a change to the Constitution that granted them those rights. I see no reason why gays can't go through the same process.
It is concievable that an amendment reversing Prop 8 would pass because Californians tend to vote for everything you see on the ballot.

What the hell? What exactly is different between what's going on now and the 'way blacks and women did it?'

Be specific.

Good question.

Did blacks or did women try to sue to get the Constituttion declared unconstitutional? Did they attempt to use shady tactics to undo constitutional amendments or did they try to put their own amendments on?
The blacks got themselves an amendment and they succeeded.
Women worked hard and long to get themselves an amendment. And it succeeded.
Gays are not trying to get an amendment, instead they are trying to block one and it looks like they are not succeeding because it is turning a lot of people off.
I mean, protests are a right, but they can also be intimidating to a lot of voters. Much like how the illegals began holding mass protests and burning American flags when Prop 187 was passed back in 1994.

Protests can have a negative meaning for most Californians. Especially when they are mass protests and people think the protestors are harrassing them or intimidating them.

Brings me back to my question in my previous post. Why can the gays not put their own amendment on the ballot to reverse Prop 8. Protests and lawsuits are unlikely to get them what they want because orientation is mentioned in neither the state or federal constitutions.

Unfortunately, yes it is. The proposition simply says that same sex marriages are not valid. It doesn't distinguish between future and past marriages, they're all invalid, if the proposition is upheld.

If it doesn't distinguish between future and past marriages, how can it go on a ballot? That sort of intentional vagueness tends to be not legal, does it not?

If it doesn't distinguish between future and past marriages, how can it go on a ballot? That sort of intentional vagueness tends to be not legal, does it not?
Not necessarily. This is an example of why you should be careful of what amendments you vote for. Most voters did not even read the amendment when they voted for it. They just read the title and marked the box.
You've heard the saying "Be careful what you wish for"? Something similar can be said about the initiative process. Be careful what you vote for.
We are already feeling the negative effects of all those mandatory spending initiatives that Californians have been approving since the 70's. We are on the verge of collapse because of the initiative process.

There is a rumor that someone with ties to the Legislature is working to completely replace the whole document. Supposedly he is slowly picking up backing for a constitutional backing but it is quiestionable whether the Legislature would support because there are things they would lose if it passes.
Perhaps someone can google it. I'm too lazy.

Good question.

Did blacks or did women try to sue to get the Constituttion declared unconstitutional? Did they attempt to use shady tactics to undo constitutional amendments or did they try to put their own amendments on?
The blacks got themselves an amendment and they succeeded.
Women worked hard and long to get themselves an amendment. And it succeeded.
Gays are not trying to get an amendment, instead they are trying to block one and it looks like they are not succeeding because it is turning a lot of people off.
I mean, protests are a right, but they can also be intimidating to a lot of voters. Much like how the illegals began holding mass protests and burning American flags when Prop 187 was passed back in 1994.

Protests can have a negative meaning for most Californians. Especially when they are mass protests and people think the protestors are harrassing them or intimidating them.

Brings me back to my question in my previous post. Why can the gays not put their own amendment on the ballot to reverse Prop 8. Protests and lawsuits are unlikely to get them what they want because orientation is mentioned in neither the state or federal constitutions.

Your first question can be answered differently depending on where you live. I'm not well-versed in American history, but in Canada women did in fact sue to gain their rights and overturn the constitution, which went all the way to the Privy-Council of Britain, which was superior to the Supreme Court of Canada at the time. The constitution was amended to give women the rights of suffrage and to run for political office, as up until that point women were not considered "persons", which was the word used by the BNA act 1867.

Yes, we in the LGBTQ community could and probably will put up yet another constitutional amendment in 2010 in order to amend things towards equality, but by your logic voters could change their minds every two years ad infinitum; something has to step in and say that the majority has no right to trample on the rights of a minority.

As for orientation not being mentioned in the constitution, perhaps that's something that should be looked at, as things covered by the constitution are differences that are created at birth, why should sexual orientation be kept off such a list, as there's very compelling evidence showing proof that homosexuality is no more a choice than skin colour.

You are wise in your observation on how the initiative process works. One way to make sure it is not reversed two years later is to seek a simultaneous change to the federal constitution. It is a lot more difficult than the process for changing the California constitution but it would nullify any state clauses that ban gay marriage.
For the federal you would need Congressional approval and 3/4 of the states. It's up to the states how they approve it. They could do it by legislative vote or they could do it by popular convention. But it is done state by state and could take a century. The last amendment that was approved took over a two centuries to be passed.
One way to shorten the process is to include a deadline which most federal amendments have done.

These are things that, as a Canadian, I wouldn't be aware of in regards to the amendment process. In terms of the Defence of Marriage Act, if it were to be repealed, which is actually something that could happen with due speed, would that allow gay couples married in California but who live in other states to challenge the bans of their states? That seems like a way to get more discussion of the issue and could more quickly put ballot initiatives onto state ballots across the nation.

Good question.

Did blacks or did women try to sue to get the Constituttion declared unconstitutional? Did they attempt to use shady tactics to undo constitutional amendments or did they try to put their own amendments on?
The blacks got themselves an amendment and they succeeded.
Women worked hard and long to get themselves an amendment. And it succeeded.
Gays are not trying to get an amendment, instead they are trying to block one and it looks like they are not succeeding because it is turning a lot of people off.
I mean, protests are a right, but they can also be intimidating to a lot of voters. Much like how the illegals began holding mass protests and burning American flags when Prop 187 was passed back in 1994.

Protests can have a negative meaning for most Californians. Especially when they are mass protests and people think the protestors are harrassing them or intimidating them.

Brings me back to my question in my previous post. Why can the gays not put their own amendment on the ballot to reverse Prop 8. Protests and lawsuits are unlikely to get them what they want because orientation is mentioned in neither the state or federal constitutions.
Uh...I think you have a shady view of history, which is stunning since this is pretty much the only well they go to every February...

In fact the did sue. Brown vs. The Board of Education? The Montgomery Bus boycott was predicated on breaking a law and having it challenged, much in the same way the initial ban in California was overturned by Gavin Newsome breaking the ban to have it challenged in court.

As a matter of fact there was a great deal more civil disobedience, protesting, pressure and unrest (there have been fewer Stonewalls than firehoses in this movement) in the push for minority and womens rights than for gay and lesbian. By comparison they're asking politely.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/SaintB/notsurprised.png

Nuff said.

These are things that, as a Canadian, I wouldn't be aware of in regards to the amendment process. In terms of the Defence of Marriage Act, if it were to be repealed, which is actually something that could happen with due speed, would that allow gay couples married in California but who live in other states to challenge the bans of their states? That seems like a way to get more discussion of the issue and could more quickly put ballot initiatives onto state ballots across the nation.

It would take Congress to repeal it. But you might be able to get SCOTUS to overturn because any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or the people respectively. For most of US history, marriage has been a state issue. You could argue that DOMA violates the federal Constitution by trespassing on the perogative of the states.
But one should be careful because an overturning of DOMA could create a national backlash by radicals. Fortunately, California is unique because it is one of only (I think) 2 to 3 states that have provisions for initiative statute/amendment. or is it 4??? I forgot.

Uh...I think you have a shady view of history, which is stunning since this is pretty much the only well they go to every February...

In fact the did sue. Brown vs. The Board of Education? The Montgomery Bus boycott was predicated on breaking a law and having it challenged, much in the same way the initial ban in California was overturned by Gavin Newsome breaking the ban to have it challenged in court.

As a matter of fact there was a great deal more civil disobedience, protesting, pressure and unrest (there have been fewer Stonewalls than firehoses in this movement) in the push for minority and womens rights than for gay and lesbian. By comparison they're asking politely.
There is something to what you say. The Black Panthers, responsible for many bombings, come to mind.
I was referring to the voting amendments but those are not the same as the civil rights movement.
But there is much disagreement on whether marriage is a civil right. It seems that most Americans are opposed to it. Mostly because of propaganda from James Dobson and his like who have painted gays as the 21st century's boogeyman. Common people tend to be pretty gullible.
I just disagree because I think, that because we have processes that they didn't have when the blacks and the women had to have their protests, that the gays should go through the system to get the law changed instead of just trying to ram a change down everyone's throat. You can accomplish much more when you are less confrontational. You get more sympathy and more support for your cause. It worked for Ghandi and it worked for MLK.
I think it is called pacifistic resistance???????????

There is something to what you say. The Black Panthers, responsible for many bombings, come to mind.
I was referring to the voting amendments but those are not the same as the civil rights movement.
But there is much disagreement on whether marriage is a civil right. It seems that most Americans are opposed to it. Mostly because of propaganda from James Dobson and his like who have painted gays as the 21st century's boogeyman. Common people tend to be pretty gullible.
I just disagree because I think, that because we have processes that they didn't have when the blacks and the women had to have their protests, that the gays should go through the system to get the law changed instead of just trying to ram a change down everyone's throat. You can accomplish much more when you are less confrontational. You get more sympathy and more support for your cause. It worked for Ghandi and it worked for MLK.
I think it is called pacifistic resistance???????????

So now they shouldn't do it the way that the civil rights and suffrage movement did? Like Loving vs. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

Look, dude, you're off the ranch. Civil rights and suffrage were all put upon against acts just like Prop 8 and DOMA and they both took an immense amount of pressure, including civil disobedience and court room challenges to the constitutionality of those acts to achieve their goal.

The pacifistic resistance thing is just cartoonish. Seriously. Please, PLEASE point me to the pink armies LGBT folks beating up straights, kidnapping priests and forcing dudes to marry other dudes.

The right to petition government was written into the First Amendment. I don't know that even you know what you're arguing at this point.

Kenneth Starr, professional turd-in-your-punchbowl since 1997.

Kenneth Starr, professional turd-in-your-punchbowl since 1997.

I think he's been a turd in the punchbowl long before that, he just got more popular in 1997 when he tried to get a man in trouble for a blow job.

He was just pissed off because he's such a bastard nobody wants to give him head.

Now he is just pissed off because the whole country has realized he is such a bastard that not even a desperate homosexual will give him head.

I think he's been a turd in the punchbowl long before that, he just got more popular in 1997 when he tried to get a man in trouble for a blow job.

He was just pissed off because he's such a bastard nobody wants to give him head.

Well, yeah. I was trying to apply a patina of benefit of the doubt. I don't know much about the man before he decided that blow jobs were high crimes.

Well, yeah. I was trying to apply a patina of benefit of the doubt. I don't know much about the man before he decided that blow jobs were high crimes.

He was a prosecutor somewhere, no doubt he was the kind that tried to get people on death row for jay walking.

I think my dislike for this man is pretty apparent...

He was a prosecutor somewhere, no doubt he was the kind that tried to get people on death row for jay walking.

I think my dislike for this man is pretty apparent...

And the man clearly deserves it.

There is something a miss with your statement.
The federal Constitution specifically prohibits slavery. Hence any change to the State Constitution that legalizes slavery would be null and void because it conflicts with the federal constitution.
As you know, when the state conflicts with federal the federal takes priority.
As with the state constitution, the federal constitution no where grants a right to marrry to anyone.
Hence Prop 8 does not even violate the federal Constitution.
Only when you specifically state that straight people have a right to be married do you then also have to give that right to gays as well. But such a clause would be impossible to enforce because there are so many undesirable single people out there. You would end up violating someone's right to free association by having to force them into marriages.
It would be a national version of the FLDS. But with government backing. Scary. Makes me shudder.

The federal Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law but it this lause only applies to religion and race. It does not apply to sexual orientation. For it to apply to sexual orientation you would need to amend the federal constitution itself. I could be wrong but it seems you are referring to the 14th amendment???? The 14th amendment does not even mention sexual orientation as being protected.

Whether federal or state, any efforts to undo Prop 8 would require another Constitutional amendment.

1. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution protect a fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967); In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).

From In re Marriage Cases:

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) [“The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.] . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ‘privacy’ ”]; Williams v. Garcetti(1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 [“we have . . . recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” ’ ”]; Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1303 [“under the state Constitution, the right to marry and the right of intimate association are virtually synonymous. . . . [W]e will refer to the privacy right in this case as the right to marry”]; In re Carrafa (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [“[t]he right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right”].)

2. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law to all persons. See, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996); In re Marriage Cases, supra.

3. Neither the U.S. Consittution nor the California Constitution is limited in its protection of rights to those specifically enumerated therein. (Don't make me drag out further citations.)

4. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the California Constitution is limited in its guarantee of equal protection to just race and religion. (ditto)

1. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution protect a fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967); In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).

From In re Marriage Cases:

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) [“The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.] . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ‘privacy’ ”]; Williams v. Garcetti(1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 [“we have . . . recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” ’ ”]; Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1303 [“under the state Constitution, the right to marry and the right of intimate association are virtually synonymous. . . . [W]e will refer to the privacy right in this case as the right to marry”]; In re Carrafa (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [“[t]he right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right”].)

2. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law to all persons. See, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996); In re Marriage Cases, supra.

3. Neither the U.S. Consittution nor the California Constitution is limited in its protection of rights to those specifically enumerated therein. (Don't make me drag out further citations.)

4. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the California Constitution is limited in its guarantee of equal protection to just race and religion. (ditto)

God, I love it when you cite precedents. GO, man, GO!

Technically, the argument about equal rights strikes me as a little funny anyway.

Homosexual Citizen A has the exact same right as Heterosexual Citizen B: to marry someone of a different gender. I have the right to marry a woman, so does Mr. A. Comparisons to miscegenation laws seem to me to be flawed in that race is a concept impossible to define properly. Scientifically, it doesn't really exist. Gender on the other hand, in the vast majority of cases, is rather obvious. Barring rather rare chromosomal/hormonal abnormalities, either you're male or you're female, and you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else.

So homosexuals aren't seeking the same rights as everyone else, but to expand a right that everyone has. They want the right to marry the opposite gender to be expanded to the right to marry anyone.

Note: I in no way, shape, or form say that this is the way it should be. I voted no on 8. I was just musing a while back and thought of this. Also, its nearly 5 AM and I'm bored.

Technically, the argument about equal rights strikes me as a little funny anyway.

Homosexual Citizen A has the exact same right as Heterosexual Citizen B: to marry someone of a different gender. I have the right to marry a woman, so does Mr. A. Comparisons to miscegenation laws seem to me to be flawed in that race is a concept impossible to define properly. Scientifically, it doesn't really exist. Gender on the other hand, in the vast majority of cases, is rather obvious. Barring rather rare chromosomal/hormonal abnormalities, either you're male or you're female, and you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else.

So homosexuals aren't seeking the same rights as everyone else, but to expand a right that everyone has. They want the right to marry the opposite gender to be expanded to the right to marry anyone.

Note: I in no way, shape, or form say that this is the way it should be. I voted no on 8. I was just musing a while back and thought of this. Also, its nearly 5 AM and I'm bored.

It's bullshit, just like laws banning interracial marriage are bullshit.

If I am homosexual person A, I do not have the right to marry my sexual partner whom I love.

If I am heterosexual person B, I do have the right to marry my sexual partner whom I love.

Unequal, discriminatory, and thus wrong. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice doesn't come into it (see my sig). Whether or not homosexuality is immoral doesn't come into it. Proposition 8, and all other pushes to ban gay marriage, discriminate against a class of people for no good reason, and are morally wrong for that reason.

Ken Starr didnt write nor legislate Prop 8 nor as far as anyone knows even vote last election. He is a lawyer. His job is to try the persons viewpoint that hired him and represent that persons view. There are millions of lawyers that represent clients they love, hate, like, are disgusted by and every other possible feeling in between. We dont hate lawyers that defend people accused of murder. He is doing his job.

Ken Starr didnt write nor legislate Prop 8 nor as far as anyone knows even vote last election. He is a lawyer. His job is to try the persons viewpoint that hired him and represent that persons view. There are millions of lawyers that represent clients they love, hate, like, are disgusted by and every other possible feeling in between. We dont hate lawyers that defend people accused of murder. He is doing his job.

The Nuremburg defense does not excuse people of the douchebaggy jobs they choose to take. Not to mention a murderer is innocent until proven guilty, Prop 8 is douchy no matter what the court decides.

Ken Starr didnt write nor legislate Prop 8 nor as far as anyone knows even vote last election. He is a lawyer. His job is to try the persons viewpoint that hired him and represent that persons view. There are millions of lawyers that represent clients they love, hate, like, are disgusted by and every other possible feeling in between. We dont hate lawyers that defend people accused of murder. He is doing his job.
CTOAN and TCT handled the main objections to the big arguments presented so far (I knew I could count on them ;)), so I'll deal with you:

A) A defense lawyer who respresents a murderer or drug dealer or mobster is helping to preserve the civil rights that ALL citizens have and must have to a fair trial, the right to confront their accusers and hear the evidence against them, and to defend themselves. They are helping to exercise and protect rights.

B) A trial lawyer who helps people sue for damages, suffering, etc., is helping people to exercise the civil rights to petition the government for redress of wrongs. Helping to exercise and protect rights.

C) Ken Starr is helping his clients to strip rights away from other citizens. Helping to destroy rights.

Do his clients have the right to petition the government? Yes, they do. But do they have a right to strip other citizens of legal rights? No, actually, they really don't. If they get away with it, then they have perpetrated an injustice against their fellow citizens. The end. And that does not make Ken Starr a good lawyer. It makes him a bastard, just like his clients. It makes him an unethical dirtbag who puts personal concerns ahead of the law, which having been a federal prosecutor whose primary duty was to the law, he really, really should not be doing.

The Nuremburg defense does not excuse people of the douchebaggy jobs they choose to take. Not to mention a murderer is innocent until proven guilty, Prop 8 is douchy no matter what the court decides.

Its not the Nuremberg defense, the same attny also negotiates sentences for their found guilty clients and in fact handle guilty pleas regularly, are they complicit in douchbaggery too?

Nevermind.

Its not the Nuremberg defense, the same attny also negotiates sentences for their found guilty clients and in fact handle guilty pleas regularly, are they complicit in douchbaggery too?
The fact that you cannot see a difference between criminal defense and what Starr and his clients are doing is either shocking or telling, I'm not sure which.

Its not the Nuremberg defense, the same attny also negotiates sentences for their found guilty clients and in fact handle guilty pleas regularly, are they complicit in douchbaggery too?

It is the same (the Nuremburg defense, not the murderer silliness, sorry, that wasn't clear). Sorry. I defer to the better worded post between yours and mine.

Not surprised. He is probably after some of that Morman money.....

Found this interesting.

Wouldn't Prop 8 fall under the the ruling of Baker v Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)?

Wouldn't Prop 8 fall under the the ruling of Baker v Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)?

No. That's the US Constitution, not the California one.

Found this interesting.

Wouldn't Prop 8 fall under the the ruling of Baker v Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)?
california is not bound by minnesota rulings.

i would assume that it will fall because before you can put discrimination into the california constitution you have to first remove the equal protection clause.

No. That's the US Constitution, not the California one.

california is not bound by minnesota rulings.

i would assume that it will fall because before you can put discrimination into the california constitution you have to first remove the equal protection clause.

except, didn't Lockyer v. San Francisco cited the Minnisota State Supreme Court ruling.

except, didn't Lockyer v. San Francisco cited the Minnisota State Supreme Court ruling.
yeah but the minnesota ruling was that its OK to discriminate by gender in marriage.

yeah but the minnesota ruling was that its OK to discriminate by gender in marriage.
isn't that was Prop 8 does?

isn't that was Prop 8 does?
sorry. misreading of language and the meaning of "fall".

my bad.

but in the end all it means is that it is not an federal violation. it can still violate the california constitution or, as this challenge seems to imply, the rules for changing the constitution.

the original california supreme court could rule that banning same sex marriages violates the california equal protection clause with minnesota rulings having no impact on it.

Or unless the state chooses to grandfather the existing marriages.

But that would be going beyond the language of the proposition, was my point. The proposition simply says all such marriages are invalid, period. I was responding to someone who said that invalidating all the marriages was not part of the proposition; unfortunately, yes it was. Though we would hope that the court would nullify the proposition to at least that extent.

Technically, the argument about equal rights strikes me as a little funny anyway.

Homosexual Citizen A has the exact same right as Heterosexual Citizen B: to marry someone of a different gender.
The Supreme Court of the US, however, ruled that the right to marry consists, precisely, the right to marry the person of one's own choosing.

If it doesn't distinguish between future and past marriages, how can it go on a ballot?
Very easily, it seems.
The California Supreme Court has dealt with dubious propositions before, consistently ruling that it will not deal with the merits of the proposition until AFTER the vote. So it let Prop 8 on the ballot, "without prejudice"; that is, allowing it to go on the ballot was not in any way inconsistent with deciding after the fact that the whole proposition is null and void.
That sort of intentional vagueness tends to be not legal, does it not?
It's not vague. On its face, it strikes down every same-sex marriage, without exceptions. If the court wants to create an exception for marriages entered into before the passage of the proposition, it would be doing so out of principles of fairness, not out of any ambiguity in the language.

But that would be going beyond the language of the proposition, was my point. The proposition simply says all such marriages are invalid, period. I was responding to someone who said that invalidating all the marriages was not part of the proposition; unfortunately, yes it was. Though we would hope that the court would nullify the proposition to at least that extent.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying about a law being applied retroactively. When a new law comes in, it is not automatically applied to everything that was done before the new law was made. If today it is legal for you to brew beer at home, but tomorrow it becomes illegal, you will not be penalized for having done it today. If a certain kind of business structure is legal in a state in one year, and becomes illegal in the next, existing businesses of that kind are not automatically wiped out. They either have a grace period by which to restructure or they can qualify to be "grandfathered", meaning that because they came into existence before the law, they will be allowed to continue as they are, even though no new businesses can use that same structure.

By that same token, if a certain kind of marriage is recognized by the state in one year and then disallowed in the next year, it is not a foregone conclusion that the state will yank the legal status of marriages it recognized under the old law. It could choose to grandfather those marriages. The current action is seeking to force the state not to grandfather those marriages.

If, as you say, retroactive application were really built into the proposition, they would not need to be petitioning the court to interpret it that way for them. They have to bring the action because the requirement to invalidate those existing marriages is not clearly evident in the language of the proposition.

That is my understanding of the situation, and if I'm wrong, I will thank one of the lawyers to correct me on it. But I believe the state originally thought as I did, because state officials from the governor on down had been saying that there was no way they would invalidate the existing marriages.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about a law being applied retroactively. When a new law comes in, it is not automatically applied to everything that was done before the new law was made. If today it is legal for you to brew beer at home, but tomorrow it becomes illegal, you will not be penalized for having done it today. If a certain kind of business structure is legal in a state in one year, and becomes illegal in the next, existing businesses of that kind are not automatically wiped out. They either have a grace period by which to restructure or they can qualify to be "grandfathered", meaning that because they came into existence before the law, they will be allowed to continue as they are, even though no new businesses can use that same structure.

By that same token, if a certain kind of marriage is recognized by the state in one year and then disallowed in the next year, it is not a foregone conclusion that the state will yank the legal status of marriages it recognized under the old law. It could choose to grandfather those marriages. The current action is seeking to force the state not to grandfather those marriages.

If, as you say, retroactive application were really built into the proposition, they would not need to be petitioning the court to interpret it that way for them. They have to bring the action because the requirement to invalidate those existing marriages is not clearly evident in the language of the proposition.

That is my understanding of the situation, and if I'm wrong, I will thank one of the lawyers to correct me on it. But I believe the state originally thought as I did, because state officials from the governor on down had been saying that there was no way they would invalidate the existing marriages.
it seems particularly unlikely that the court will nullify all the same sex marriages that were legally entered into.

there has to be some standard of what cant be done by referendum and surely this is one of them.

it seems particularly unlikely that the court will nullify all the same sex marriages that were legally entered into.

there has to be some standard of what cant be done by referendum and surely this is one of them.
This strikes me as a potential learning experience for California in that regard. That state is tradtionally downright stupid in its addiction to referendum measures, in my opinion. I certainly hope they'll learn better and put some better limitations on that.

This strikes me as a potential learning experience for California in that regard. That state is tradtionally downright stupid in its addiction to referendum measures, in my opinion. I certainly hope they'll learn better and put some better limitations on that.
me too. its crazy to ammend the constitution on voter whim.

as it is, if prop 8 stands it reduces the california equal protection clause to "equal but some are more equal than others". who is next to not be worth equal protection by vote of the majority?

sorry. misreading of language and the meaning of "fall".

my bad.

but in the end all it means is that it is not an federal violation. it can still violate the california constitution or, as this challenge seems to imply, the rules for changing the constitution.

the original california supreme court could rule that banning same sex marriages violates the california equal protection clause with minnesota rulings having no impact on it.
and that's what they (the courts) did on the earlier ban. but doesn't Prop 8 change the California Consititution to limit marriage to one man and one woman?

and which rule was broken for chaning the Consititution?

me too. its crazy to ammend the constitution on voter whim.

as it is, if prop 8 stands it reduces the california equal protection clause to "equal but some are more equal than others". who is next to not be worth equal protection by vote of the majority?
I agree. I heard at some point right after the election that California's constitution can be amended by a simple majority but it needs a two-thirds majority to approve a budget. That's just insane, as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, I can easily see this creating encouragement to anyone who has a bigoted agenda to promote. Prove you can strip away existing legal rights from gays for no other reason than that they are gay, and I don't think it will be very long before you start to see racists and xenophobes coming up with anti-immigrant measures, other moralists coming up with measures against the poor, against single parent families, etc. Once upon a time, wasn't California the home of organized institutional bigotry of that kind, against Chinese immigrants?

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/chineseinca/antichinese.html

After Prop 8, and after several years of increasing xenophobia and nativism all around the country, I really don't find it hard to imagine them sliding back towards that.

This strikes me as a potential learning experience for California in that regard. That state is tradtionally downright stupid in its addiction to referendum measures, in my opinion. I certainly hope they'll learn better and put some better limitations on that.

probably why everyone is watching this...

and that's what they (the courts) did on the earlier ban. but doesn't Prop 8 change the California Consititution to limit marriage to one man and one woman?

and which rule was broken for chaning the Consititution?
i have no knowledge of the calif constitution. i dont live there. but from what i have read there is a distiction between ammending and ......i dont remember the word....ammending it big time. so if this is a big time change, it cant be done by referendum but if its a little clarification change, its fine.

i have no knowledge of the calif constitution. i dont live there. but from what i have read there is a distiction between ammending and ......i dont remember the word....ammending it big time. so if this is a big time change, it cant be done by referendum but if its a little clarification change, its fine.

Good point. I've heard it stated both as a change and as a clarification to the definition of marriage.

Ken Starr didnt write nor legislate Prop 8 nor as far as anyone knows even vote last election. He is a lawyer. His job is to try the persons viewpoint that hired him and represent that persons view. There are millions of lawyers that represent clients they love, hate, like, are disgusted by and every other possible feeling in between. We dont hate lawyers that defend people accused of murder. He is doing his job.

except that he has the right to refuse, and instead he's now the chief counsel. Morals my good man, morals. Mr. Starr obviously doesn't have any if he decided to do this job in good faith.

except that he has the right to refuse, and instead he's now the chief counsel. Morals my good man, morals. Mr. Starr obviously doesn't have any if he decided to do this job in good faith.
unless he believes in prop 8 or in the right of the citizens of calfornia to pass such a proposition regardless of his opinion of its content.

having morals that are different than yours isnt the same as having none.

taking away the rights of other human beings is always wrong, that's not a moral judgement; its a giant fuck you to people you don't like.

The next step, of course, will be to levy a Gay Tax so those nasty icky gays can compensate society for the trauma they caused by defiling the sacred heterosexual institution of marriage.

1. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution protect a fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967); In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).

From In re Marriage Cases:

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) [“The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.] . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ‘privacy’ ”]; Williams v. Garcetti(1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 [“we have . . . recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” ’ ”]; Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1303 [“under the state Constitution, the right to marry and the right of intimate association are virtually synonymous. . . . [W]e will refer to the privacy right in this case as the right to marry”]; In re Carrafa (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [“[t]he right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right”].)

2. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law to all persons. See, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996); In re Marriage Cases, supra.

3. Neither the U.S. Consittution nor the California Constitution is limited in its protection of rights to those specifically enumerated therein. (Don't make me drag out further citations.)

4. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the California Constitution is limited in its guarantee of equal protection to just race and religion. (ditto)

One thing. Those cases you cited. Are they federal or state? I see a reference to the state Constitution's right of privacy being used to say that there is a right to marry but where does it say that the federal constitution includes such a right.
NTL, If a grants rights to one group they must grant them to all. In this case, California had a law that granted a right to marry to all straight couples. It was overturned by the state's top court because it did not apply to gays. In response, the voters approved a change to the constitution to specifically exempt a group of people from a right given to straights. Note that the right not only doesn't apply to gays but it also does not apply to polygamists or people who like to bonk animals.
I would like to see an amendment that not only permits gay marriage but also consensual, well informed polygamous marriage as well. But then Mr. Dobson might argue that it we permit any of those, we might as well allow incestous marriages as well. THough I am sure a counter argument could be made.

I must say, using the right to privacy to say there is a right to marry is pretty creative. It reminds of when SCOTUS said that the right of privacy meant women had a right to kill preborn children in their Roe V Wade ruling back in 73. It seems the right to privacy can be used to argue for a lot of things. But then again, it has also been used in attempts to cover up crimes.

The conflict as I see it is this: equal protection yes. But that usually applies to regular laws and statutes. Suppose the Constitution itself denies equal rights? You can't remedy it by having a court overturn the Constitution. No state court has that authority. The only remedy I see, is to amend the constitution to eliminate the exclusivity of the right in question.

Usually, parents are there to not only nurture but to protect their children. But what do you when the parent is the one abusing the child? Do you not initiate a change in guardianship?
The Constitution is there to protect us from abusive laws. However, when the Constitution itself becomes a source to justify the abuse of rights, the we initiate changes either by amending the constitution or by replacing it altogether.

Which is what you just finished saying that gay-rights activists should NOT be doing. We protested, and now we're appealing to the state supreme court, which you were quite adamant in saying was the wrong choice of action for the queer rights community, even though you then said that we should follow the choices of other rights groups including the civil rights movement and the woman's suffrage movement. Well, which one is it?

One thing. Those cases you cited. Are they federal or state? I see a reference to the state Constitution's right of privacy being used to say that there is a right to marry but where does it say that the federal constitution includes such a right.

Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967) and Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996) are federal cases applying the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The other cases I cited are California cases applying the California Constitution.

To be clear, Loving says that the U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental right to marry:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

See also Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S. 702 (1997)("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)...")

NTL, If a grants rights to one group they must grant them to all. In this case, California had a law that granted a right to marry to all straight couples. It was overturned by the state's top court because it did not apply to gays. In response, the voters approved a change to the constitution to specifically exempt a group of people from a right given to straights. Note that the right not only doesn't apply to gays but it also does not apply to polygamists or people who like to bonk animals.

This slippery slope argument is bullshit. Are you really saying you can't think of any rational basis for distinquishing same-sex marriage from polygamy and bestiality? If so, the moral and legal failure is in your thinking, not in the case for same-sex marriage.

You also have your understanding of the evolution of California's law rather mixed up, but that is unimportant.

I must say, using the right to privacy to say there is a right to marry is pretty creative. It reminds of when SCOTUS said that the right of privacy meant women had a right to kill preborn children in their Roe V Wade ruling back in 73. It seems the right to privacy can be used to argue for a lot of things. But then again, it has also been used in attempts to cover up crimes.

*sigh*

First, you are confusing the California state caselaw with the federal caselaw.

Second, note the 9th and 14th Amendments which make clear that fundamental rights not specifically enumerated by the U.S. Constitution are nonetheless protected by the U.S. Constitution. As explained in Washington v. Glucksberg, supra:

The Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment] guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra.

See also Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968).

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life



The conflict as I see it is this: equal protection yes. But that usually applies to regular laws and statutes. Suppose the Constitution itself denies equal rights? You can't remedy it by having a court overturn the Constitution. No state court has that authority. The only remedy I see, is to amend the constitution to eliminate the exclusivity of the right in question.

Um. You don't really understand what is currently at issue in the Proposition 8 lawsuits, do you?

The California Supreme Court is reviewing three questions:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1-4.)

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

If the Court decides "yes" to either of the first 2 questions, Proposition 8 is invalid.

The California Supreme Court is reviewing three questions:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1-4.)

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

If the Court decides "yes" to either of the first 2 questions, Proposition 8 is invalid.

I was wondering about this after hearing that Attorney General Brown urged invalidation on entirely different grounds (http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1642)... is the Court likely to expand the scope of its review?

Which is what you just finished saying that gay-rights activists should NOT be doing. We protested, and now we're appealing to the state supreme court, which you were quite adamant in saying was the wrong choice of action for the queer rights community, even though you then said that we should follow the choices of other rights groups including the civil rights movement and the woman's suffrage movement. Well, which one is it?

The protesting is fine. As long as it remains peaceful and the protestors aren't acting like stalkers.
The gay community has rightfully appealed a statute to the State Supreme Court and the court has, rightfully overturned it.
So far so good. Everything up this point was done right.
But then the people of California added an amendment to the state constitution deny marriage to gays. Gays are suing to have the top court declare the amendment unconstitutional. That is, they argue it violates the state constitution.
That is the crux of the problem. Gays want the top court to declare that the state constitution is in violation of the state constitution. Such as thing cannot be. A constitution cannot violate itself. And where conflict does occasionally arise between recent amendments and previous amendments, precedent has affirmed that most recently adopted section takes precedence over the one that existed before it.
It appears to me, and to a lot of people that gays are trying to get the top court to unilaterally change the constitution. I do not believe the courts have that power. They can interpret it but they cannot change it.
Only the voters and the legislature can make amendments to the existing constitution and only the voters can replace a constitution.
I understand that many gay groups are arguing that the amendment amounts to a "constitutional revision". And there are some cross arguments from the other side. But the term itself is semantics.
The revision that opponents of Prop 8 are referring to, only occurs when change the shape of the government in addition to changing the rights. IE>> A revision means you are abandoning the whole document and replacing it with a new one. In such a case you would need a convention.
With an amendment, which is what 8 was, you are only changing a small part of the constitution. You are not changing the shape of govennment, you are not changing any other rights, you are changing how the state spends is money nor are you affecting the referendum process. As such, you need only place it on the ballot where it must garner at least 2/3 of the vote in most cases. I believe that to be the case in California as well.
A regular statute only requires a simple majority. That leaves the question. What was the victory margin of Prop 8????? Did it pass with enough votes?
Good question....

You know in Cool Hand Luke where Luke is in that fight and he keeps getting knocked down and he keeps getting up and at first everyone's all "Yeah! Get up!" but then it becomes kind of sad and then a little brutal and then everyone starts telling him to stay down?

We're at that last part now.

I thought this man was dead?

I should like to point out that proposition 8 completely violates one of the opening sections of the California Constitution, right where it talks about equality under the law. To have a single amendment so blatantly violate the founding principle of the Constitution is beyond illogical. The amendment is null and void for the very reason that it violates the principle of the Constitution without removing that section, which would require a constitutional convention and the Yes side simply doesn't have that level of support.
If, as you're now suggesting, proposition 8 was simply a regular statute of law, then its also null and void for violation of the state Constitution, that's not really helping you any, particularly since prop 8 didn't get 2/3 of the vote as you mentioned. It BARELY got more than 50% of the vote.

The California Supreme Court is reviewing three questions:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1-4.)

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

If the Court decides "yes" to either of the first 2 questions, Proposition 8 is invalid.

and should it be decided that Prop 8 passes... what legal recourse do opponents have, or is it a 'done deal'?

Opponents of proposition 8 can put a resolution of their own on the ballot in 2010 either repealing proposition 8 or amending the constitution again to enshrine gay marriage as part of the constitution.

...And we can keep switching sides every two years until we all die, as there's no legal limit to the number of times something can go on the ballot, as long as there's enough support for something.

I should like to point out that proposition 8 completely violates one of the opening sections of the California Constitution, right where it talks about equality under the law. To have a single amendment so blatantly violate the founding principle of the Constitution is beyond illogical. The amendment is null and void for the very reason that it violates the principle of the Constitution without removing that section, which would require a constitutional convention and the Yes side simply doesn't have that level of support.
If, as you're now suggesting, proposition 8 was simply a regular statute of law, then its also null and void for violation of the state Constitution, that's not really helping you any, particularly since prop 8 didn't get 2/3 of the vote as you mentioned. It BARELY got more than 50% of the vote.

Actually, if that were the case then the amendment banning slavery would be unconstitutional because it violates one of the original sections of the US Constitution which, when the Constitution was first ratified, guaranteed that most blacks would be the property of whites. The amendment granting women the right to vote would also be unconstitutional because it violated the opening section where the US Constitution states that in order to be allowed to vote you have to be a man.
Prop 8 changed the meaning of the opening sections of the state constitution just the 14th and 22nd amendments changed the original meaning of the US constitution.
It might seem illogical, but a constitution cannot violate itself. When a new amendment conflicts with an earlier clause, or even an opening clause, then the amendment takes precedence. We will have to wait until March to see this in action. That is when the State's top court has said it will look at the case.
Changing a section does not require a convention under state law. It would if we were talking about the federal.
Prop 8 was an amendment. It was meant to be an amendment but I think people might confused as to the differences in the requirements for passing an amendment versus passing a statute. If Prop did not get the 2/3 required (I have to admit I'm not sure if it really requires 2/3) then I don't see how it can become the law of the land in California.
Let me check on that requirement just to make sure. If it does end up needing 2/3, then I think the gays should shift their legal focus to point out that it did not get enough votes to pass.
While you don't need a convention, there are still tighter requirements for a constitutional amendment than for a statute.
I'm not against gay marriage or Prop 8 in particular. I'm just don't like the current state constitution because it has left California ungovernable.
It is the source of all of our problems and we should have a convention to completely replace it. Not just the rights section but the financial section, the government section and the whole kaboodle.
Remember it was written in the mid 19th century at time when "it is scientific fact that all blacks are inferior to whites and women are too emotional to be allowed to vote or hold property." Really, is that the type of document you want a 21st century state to be governed by???? Yes it amended to fix that. But it was also amended to lock in 95% of the state's spending. That is why we are having a major economic crises in the state right now that has reverberated across the nation and the world. All state spending is mandated by the constititution because of amendments approved by the voters over the last 20 years at least.

To clarify, proposition 8 got a whole 52% of the vote, not exactly a stunning show of electoral prowess.

Do you think that Prop 8 was an amendment or do you agree with gay activists that it amounts to a 100% revision of the constitution?

I lean toward an simple amendment of one section. Article 1 of the constitution in question says nothing about marriage being a right for anyone. The State Supreme Court appears to have based its gay marriage decision off the valid concept that the state must treat all persons equally under the law. That is in the Declaration of Rights, but no where in the Declaration of Rights is there a specific right to marry, whether you are gay or straight. Otherwise, all those guys who could not find chicks to marry would be able to sue the state to force it to find them wives and even lonely women would be able to sue the state.

The Gays seem to be asking for a right that even the Heterosexuals in the state don't have. Why should they have rights that don't apply to me as a straight single person?
I don't agree with Jerry Brown that the people can't change the Constitution.
They are also wrong that the people can't change the constitution. The initiative process, provided for by the state Constitution gives the people the right to change the Constitution via the initiative process. Otherwise, the whole document becomes invalidated and California is a state without a valid Constitution.
A revision is when the whole document is changed. In Prop 8 we have only one section of a document being altered, not the entire document itself. Conventions are not for amending the Constitution but for completely replacing it.
I agree with Star that in the American system of government that judges are required to bow to the will of the people when they express it as a Constitutional Amendment. In most states, amendments cannot be done by simple initiative process but in California, the Constitution specifically states that all parts of the Constitution itself are open to popular amendment via the initiative process.
The Declaration of Rights is found in Article II, from my understanding. I would note that either Article II or Article I also states that it is unconstitutional to speak any language other English when you are engaged in official government business. Hence many California Education officials from the Superintendent down to your local teachers are violating the Constitution every time they speak Spanish on school time. They are also in violation when they encourage their students to speak it on school time. Perhaps then, because of this English only clause, Article II (or again I) is unconstitutional hence making the entire Constitution unconstitutional because it "violates itself".
Afterall, an English only clause would appear to violate the Free Speech clause of Article II.
What the Court had previously said is that the marriage can't be barred with a simple initiative statute. The difference in this case is that Prop 8 is not a initiative statute, it's a change to the Constitution itself. The Court is going to hardpressed to overturn and if they do, it is likely to result in a couple of things:

1. The recall of the entire State Supreme Court. The Constitution does allow the people to remove members of the Supreme Court through the recall process. Conversely, the legislature could remove them via the impeachment process.

2. The state government, already facing severe strains because of the financial crises and partisan derailment could very well collapse leaving Californians without any state government.

In the latter case, the state would then fall under the direct rule of the federal govenrment until such time as a new state Constitution is adopted.

But even assuming the you're right, and that's debatable, what is the logical reason to ban gay marriage? Why should it be illegal? I'd think that the burden of proof should be on those individuals seeking to make it illegal, especially considering the fact that it was legal before the prop 8 bullshit. Other than strict, arbitrary interpretations of a certain holy book, what reason is there to have a problem with gay marriage?

All the countries that have legalized it have managed to stay afloat. Their civilizations haven't collapsed. In fact, the few states that actually have gay marriage in the US have some of the best stats in the entire country. Now, correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation certainly implies lack of causation, and considering that all these places with gay marriage seem like nice places to live, what's the logical reason?

This might be silly of me to suggest this but, maybe, just maybe, this is no logical reason. It's just another one of our politician's favorite WMD's. (weapons of mass distraction) Just give gays the damn rights and be done with it.

Opponents of proposition 8 can put a resolution of their own on the ballot in 2010 either repealing proposition 8 or amending the constitution again to enshrine gay marriage as part of the constitution.

...And we can keep switching sides every two years until we all die, as there's no legal limit to the number of times something can go on the ballot, as long as there's enough support for something.

As i have prior stated, the latter problem can be nullified by amending the federal constitution to protect gay rights. If the state constitution violates the federal constitution, the offending state clause is null and void.

It just takes a lot longer to amend the federal than it does to amend the state. The requirements are tighter. But it is worth it if you really want to protect gay marriage.

As i have prior stated, the latter problem can be nullified by amending the federal constitution to protect gay rights. If the state constitution violates the federal constitution, the offending state clause is null and void.

It just takes a lot longer to amend the federal than it does to amend the state. The requirements are tighter. But it is worth it if you really want to protect gay marriage.
This is just nonsensical. Is it your contention that the Constitution as already written cannot be applied to gay citizens? Maybe there should be an amendment to the Constitution specifying the rights of every single demographic in the country. Or, to be really safe, how about every individual person?

The rules of the Constitution and the rights described in the Bill of Rights apply to ALL citizens equally including the equal protection clause. So do the interpretations of those various clauses as decided by the SCOTUS at various times. Yes, that includes the gay citizens, too. There is no need to rewrite the Constitution, only a need to obey it.

As i have prior stated, the latter problem can be nullified by amending the federal constitution to protect gay rights.

Why the hell would we need to do that, when the 14th amendment is abundantly clear in its application to all persons

Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967) and Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996) are federal cases applying the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The other cases I cited are California cases applying the California Constitution.

To be clear, Loving says that the U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental right to marry:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

See also Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S. 702 (1997)("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)...")



This slippery slope argument is bullshit. Are you really saying you can't think of any rational basis for distinquishing same-sex marriage from polygamy and bestiality? If so, the moral and legal failure is in your thinking, not in the case for same-sex marriage.

You also have your understanding of the evolution of California's law rather mixed up, but that is unimportant.



*sigh*

First, you are confusing the California state caselaw with the federal caselaw.

Second, note the 9th and 14th Amendments which make clear that fundamental rights not specifically enumerated by the U.S. Constitution are nonetheless protected by the U.S. Constitution. As explained in Washington v. Glucksberg, supra:

The Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment] guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra.

See also Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968).

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life





Um. You don't really understand what is currently at issue in the Proposition 8 lawsuits, do you?

The California Supreme Court is reviewing three questions:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1-4.)

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

If the Court decides "yes" to either of the first 2 questions, Proposition 8 is invalid.

Your arguments seem sound and well researched. Are you by chance an attorney? LOL
If the federal constitution protects marriage, then why is that not one of the questions before the state's top court? Or can only federal courts decide if state's are violating the federal? I would think the gays would have filed a suit in a federal district court if that were the case.
Then again, for centuries marriages has always been one man and one woman. Now all of a sudden we are being asked to include, one man and one man in that definition. Hence, I think the right marriage was meant to apply only to what has historically been termed "normal relationships" that people believed could only happen naturally between a male and female. To apply federal marriage rights to gays would involve a revolutionary change in the definition of marriage and a new way of thinking.
When it comes to legalizing gay marriage, the courts would inevitably end up having to redefine it. The federal courts have traditionally held to the traditional definitions of such terms. But there is precedent. For example, the courts had traditionally held that only white males were persons. Then it was expanded to include blacks, women, native americans and other races by decision of the courts. For years, since Roe, preborn children were not persons period. In recent years, the courts have ruled that preborn children, in certain cases, do have personhood. IE when they upheld the federal law that said if you beat a pregnant woman and her preborn child died, you were guilty of first degree murder of a person.
It would be interesting to see the consequences of the federal courts redefining the definition of marriage.


I think the court the will most likely find that 8 is not a revision but an amendment. The gay community is grasping at straws when they call it a "revision".

How would Prop 8 violate the seperation of powers?????

The third question just shows the stupidity and lack of forsight of the authors of Prop 8.

Your arguments seem sound and well researched. Are you by chance an attorney? LOL

Yes, he is. One of several. Neo Art is also an attorney (Neo, I apologize for speaking for you), and I believe there are a few more as well as several law students in NSG. So mind your p's and q's.

But even assuming the you're right, and that's debatable, what is the logical reason to ban gay marriage? Why should it be illegal? I'd think that the burden of proof should be on those individuals seeking to make it illegal, especially considering the fact that it was legal before the prop 8 bullshit. Other than strict, arbitrary interpretations of a certain holy book, what reason is there to have a problem with gay marriage?

All the countries that have legalized it have managed to stay afloat. Their civilizations haven't collapsed. In fact, the few states that actually have gay marriage in the US have some of the best stats in the entire country. Now, correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation certainly implies lack of causation, and considering that all these places with gay marriage seem like nice places to live, what's the logical reason?

This might be silly of me to suggest this but, maybe, just maybe, this is no logical reason. It's just another one of our politician's favorite WMD's. (weapons of mass distraction) Just give gays the damn rights and be done with it.
There is none. None whatsoever.
It's just that James Dobson and Pastor Warren, in order to motivate their supporters, has declared that all gays are the evil boogeymen of our time. Funny thing is, I've met gays. They don't look like boogeymen. Or at least I haven't seen any horns sticking out of their heads. They certainly don't act like boogeymen. LOL
Personally, I think those two should go back to being non political religious leaders. They were much better at it than they are at politics.
It's all about creating an enemy to fear and blame all of society's problems on. You know, blame the strangers for everything bad.

On the side, the financial situation has nothing to do with gay rights. I did not mean to confuse. I was just doing a comparison to illustrate how screwed up the state constitution is.

There is none. None whatsoever.
It's just that James Dobson and Pastor Warren, in order to motivate their supporters, has declared that all gays are the evil boogeymen of our time. Funny thing is, I've met gays. They don't look like boogeymen. Or at least I haven't seen any horns sticking out of their heads. They certainly don't act like boogeymen. LOL
Personally, I think those two should go back to being non political religious leaders. They were much better at it than they are at politics.
It's all about creating an enemy to fear and blame all of society's problems on. You know, blame the strangers for everything bad.

On the side, the financial situation has nothing to do with gay rights. I did not mean to confuse. I was just doing a comparison to illustrate how screwed up the state constitution is.

I apologize, the way that post was typed, it came across as being against gay marriage. You didn't say that explicitly, but I inferred it from what you said.

The third question just shows the stupidity and lack of forsight of the authors of Prop 8.
which is not far fetched.

He was a prosecutor somewhere, no doubt he was the kind that tried to get people on death row for jay walking.

I think my dislike for this man is pretty apparent...

You don't like Ken Starr? I never would have guessed...

<SNIP> that does not make Ken Starr a good lawyer. It makes him a bastard, just like his clients.<SNIP>

Just wanted to take this moment to point out the fact that those two are not mutually exclusive (assuming good=skilled).

The third question just shows the stupidity and lack of forsight of the authors of Prop 8.

It does not. It was in all probability a politically-calculated move: they wanted to avoid as much as possible the impression that were taking away rights as opposed to defensively re-asserting the "traditional" definition of marriage.

That, of course, highlights the disingenuousness of their present argument that Prop. 8 was intended to retroactively deny marriage rights.

Why the hell would we need to do that, when the 14th amendment is abundantly clear in its application to all persons

The 14th states, "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There has been historical debate down the generations as to who this applied to. For example, at first it was only intended to apply to black males. Indians, women, and children of foreigners were not intended to be covered. In fact, the man who wrote this clause stated that it excluded not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” In essence, the 14th only protects US citizens. Not foreigners or immigrants ot the US who do not hold US citizenship. I bring it up because if that is the case, the 14th would only protect the marriage rights of gays who are US citizens.
In 1884, in Elk vs Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment did not apply to Native Americans.
But in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that children of chinese immigrants were automatic US citizens. The case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark. However, at this time there was no difference between illegal and legal immigration. The court has never ruled on whether the legal status of an immigrant entitled that immigrant's children a right to US citizenship. But there are indirect hints, in other cases, that the court does believe such children, when born in the US, are US citizens.
In point of fact, the 14th amendment prohibits Congress from revoking any person's citizenship for almost any reason.

Any laws or rights that apply to one group of US citizens must apply to all US citizens.

The question before us is whether the 14th applies to gay marriage.
You know, in 1873, the Supreme Court ruled in several Slaughterhouse cases, that the 14th could only be invoked in cases concerning the determination of US citizenship. This limited the amendment's scope. In 1883, SCOTUS further declared that the 14th only applied to government action. It did not apply to churches or private persons. This is significant since most marriages are performed by priests and you would need a priest willing to marry gay people. The state cannot compel a church or any private person to marry you. Then again, there is precedent for civil servants to marry people in a non religious setting.
In fact, you might not know this, but a private business can discriminate against any it wants for any reason it wants. In cases from the 1880's the Court said that all government laws and regulation must apply to all US citizens uniformly.
In 1896, the Court that "seperate but equal" interpretations of the law were vaild interpretations of the 14th. The Court upheld this view for over 50 years. In other words, you have a right to a house. But you do not have a right to my house nor do you have a right to house that looks identical to mine. You just have a right to a house.
In the 20th century, the Court ruled that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the states. It said that this included all rights found in the original ten amendments. Hence, rights may not be terminated wihout due process. The question this leads to is this: "Does an amendment to a state constitution, constitute due process?"
The court has never ruled that the 14th amendment means that the definition of marriage includes relationships between people who are the same gender.

Not satisfied with his witch-hunt against President Clinton, his representation of Blackwater, and his "fine" work in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, Kenneth Starr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr) is now working for the homophobes. NOTE: The bastard is arguing that the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages in California are no longer valid.

Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html)

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead council for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

I have nothing constructive to say: just that Mr. Starr is an asshole (like his clients in this case).

Are you saying that they don't have the right to legal representation?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Are you saying that they don't have the right to legal representation?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

then I think you need to learn to read.

then I think you need to learn to read.

Cat is apparently not liking the idea that Ken Starr is representing these people.

While I don't agree with the Prop 8 supporters, they have every right to have legal representation.

There are plenty of lawyers in this country who are less human than Ken Starr - most plaintiffs' lawyers for instance.

Yet plaintiffs are entitled to legal representation.

Cat is apparently not liking the idea that Ken Starr is representing these people.

While I don't agree with the Prop 8 supporters, they have every right to have legal representation.

There are plenty of lawyers in this country who are less human than Ken Starr - most plaintiffs' lawyers for instance.

Yet plaintiffs are entitled to legal representation.

and Cat has ever right to judge someone for the clients he chooses to take. More to point, you actually don't have a right to an attorney in civil litigation. You have a right to hire one if you are willing and able, but there's no right to an attorney in civil litigation, like there is in criminal defense.

Ok. I checked and I think the gays are confused about the process for revision. I am wrong also because I agreed with them that a revision would require a convention. However, a revision

"may be passed with the approval of both two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of voters" This means simple majority and it applies to both amendments and revisions. As with other provisions the constitution, this clause also creates problems as exemplified by the case before us. But a revision does require the additional 2/3 support of the Legislature and it is questionable whether 8 had recieved such support.

This makes the distinction between whether 8 is an amendment or a revision rather moot then because the process required for it to become valid has been met.

In point of fact, the State Supreme Court had already ruled on the revision versus amendment argument when on July 16, 2008 it denied a petition to have Prop 8 taken off the ballot because Gay Rights Activists argued it was revision and required a constitutional convention. However, in denying the petition, California's top court appears to have rejected that argument.
However, the rejection was done without comment, allowing for the current lawsuit. But if July 16 is any indication. It does not look like the opponents of 8 will suceed on this front. The reason for the lack of comment is because it not permissable for court to rule on a measure's validity until after it has been passed.
Point of fact is that this will be the first time that the difference between an amendment and revision will be defined by the top court. This by itself, is a more important matter than the mere issue of who can marry who because it affects all future attempts to change the constitution.

Regrettably, only 1/3 of the state's legislature has expressed opposition to Prop 8 with the majority of legislators saying they supported it. That could hurt the 2/3 argument.

Now as regards to the activities of the anti 8 groups.

Wikipedia states"Envelopes containing a suspicious white powder were mailed to two LDS temples and a Catholic fraternity, prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal investigation into who is behind it. The white powder scares were reported on November 13, 2008 at Salt Lake City's Temple Square, an LDS temple in Los Angeles and at a printing plant belonging to the Knights of Columbus (a Roman Catholic fraternity) in New Haven, Connecticut. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Knights of Columbus were both major backers of Proposition 8." Though FBI has said it has found no connection to the Prop 8 campaign, it has not been able to rule it out either.



Ten LDS church buildings in the Sacramento region, and seven houses of worship in Utah, were vandalized in the ten days following the November 4 election, more than that expected for an entire year.

i addition, a Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of a Latter-Day Saint chapel in Littleton, Colorado, on November 11, another incident being investigated as a hate crime. The implication being the hate crime was committed by a gay activist against a Mormon on the basis of the Mormon's religious belief regarding marriage.

Not exactly what I would call peaceful protesting. It is acts like these that hurting the movement against Prop 8. Gays can't expect to achieve their goals when they refuse to condemn acts such as these.

The vandalism of churches and intimidation/humiliation of religious figures is not protected by the right of free assembly nor is it protected by the right of civil disobedience. You have to show tolerance before you can get tolerance.

For the record, revisions to the California Constitution no longer require Constitutional Conventions, only 2/3 support of the Legislature. The question that remains is, do they actually have to take a vote on it or does "expressing support" count?????????

All I can say is that Brown proved that the Prop 8 supporters were right to not trust them to defend their amendment.
When the guy who is supposed to supports starts arguing against you. Would you really put much stock in him?

Of course they have to actually vote on it. You can "express support" for anything in the world, doesn't matter one bit politically or legally unless a binding vote is taken on the subject.

All I can say is that Brown proved that the Prop 8 supporters were right to not trust them to defend their amendment.
When the guy who is supposed to supports starts arguing against you. Would you really put much stock in him?
at 70 maybe jerry brown is old enough to follow his conscience and stop worrying about getting votes in the next election.

the court rejected the argument not for any analysis but for a ripeness issue. Under California tradition, issues challenging a ballot initiative should be brought after it passes, not before.

In that case, the opponents best hope is that the Court will declare Prop 8 to be a revision which means they have to start all over again. But I am pessimestic about whether they will.

Ok. I checked and I think the gays are confused about the process for revision.

"The gays"? :rolleyes:

"may be passed with the approval of both two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of voters" This means simple majority and it applies to both amendments and revisions.

Proposition 8 was never approved by the legislature, via two-thirds majority or otherwise. (The legislature, to the contrary, has voted to legalize same-sex marriage twice, and was stopped only by the governor's veto.)

This is the crucial procedural difference between amendments and revisions: constitutional revisions must be proposed by two-thirds of the legislature (and then approved by a majority of the voters), while constitutional amendments can either be proposed in that matter or by the gathering of signatures of 5% of the voter total in the last election for governor. Proposition 8 was proposed by the latter method, and thus, if it is a revision, it is unconstitutional and should be invalidated.

This makes the distinction between whether 8 is an amendment or a revision rather moot then because the process required for it to become valid has been met.

Which merely shows that the only person "confused about the process of revision" is you.

In point of fact, the State Supreme Court had already ruled on the revision versus amendment argument when on July 16, 2008 it denied a petition to have Prop 8 taken off the ballot because Gay Rights Activists argued it was revision and required a constitutional convention.

That was not their argument. See above.

However, in denying the petition, California's top court appears to have rejected that argument.

They did nothing of the sort. They merely refused to rule either way prior to passage.

The reason for the lack of comment is because it not permissable for court to rule on a measure's validity until after it has been passed.

...which rather obviously means that you cannot cite the July 16 decision as support for your position either. It did not "rule on [the] measure's validity" either way.

Point of fact is that this will be the first time that the difference between an amendment and revision will be defined by the top court.

That's simply not true. There's plenty of precedent on the amendment/revision question.

Regrettably, only 1/3 of the state's legislature has expressed opposition to Prop 8 with the majority of legislators saying they supported it. That could hurt the 2/3 argument.

The legislature voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Twice. What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information? Essentially everything you have said so far is provably, egregiously wrong.

Gays can't expect to achieve their goals when they refuse to condemn acts such as these.

Gay people do not have collective responsibility for what some gay people do.

You have to show tolerance before you can get tolerance.

...then you should not be objecting to our intolerance of the people who have so clearly shown intolerance of LGBT people, right?

The question that remains is, do they actually have to take a vote on it

Yes, obviously. That's how any legislative process works.

or does "expressing support" count?????????

The legislature has not done this, either.

Cat is apparently not liking the idea that Ken Starr is representing these people.

While I don't agree with the Prop 8 supporters, they have every right to have legal representation.

There are plenty of lawyers in this country who are less human than Ken Starr - most plaintiffs' lawyers for instance.

Yet plaintiffs are entitled to legal representation.
No, Neo Art is right, you need to learn to read. Cat is taking issue with the action that is being brought by Ken Starr on behalf of these people. Separately, he is also expressing personal disgust with Ken Starr.

It's no surprise that you missed that those were distinct points, because if you hadn't "missed" it, you wouldn't be able to make such a baseless, pointless comment.

at 70 maybe jerry brown is old enough to follow his conscience and stop worrying about getting votes in the next election.

actually Jerry Brown is THE main Democratic Candidate for Governor for the 2010 election and he has been watching the groundswell of support for gay marriage that has been surfacing across the nation.

If he thinks defending Prop 8 will hurt him in 08, he'll go against it. Regardless of what the law requires him to do.

In that case, the opponents best hope is that the Court will declare Prop 8 to be a revision which means they have to start all over again.

Who is "they"? If Prop. 8 is invalidated, same-sex marriage will be legal again: In re Marriage Cases will stand. There's not a chance the proponents of Prop. 8 would get an equivalent through the legislature, especially not with the two-thirds requirement, so that will be the end of the matter for the foreseeable future: same-sex marriage will be legal and secure in California.

I simply love having this guy around as Dean of our Law School.

Unfortunately, arguing with the administration gets you in trouble for false Alcohol Possession or fined through the eyeballs because the "carpet was slightly dirty on checkout".

I hate Pepperdine.

actually Jerry Brown is THE main Democratic Candidate for Governor for the 2010 election and he has been watching the groundswell of support for gay marriage that has been surfacing across the nation.

If he thinks defending Prop 8 will hurt him in 08, he'll go against it. Regardless of what the law requires him to do.
its a sad comment on california politics that a man who would turn 73 shortly after taking office is their best candidate.

"The gays"? :rolleyes:



Proposition 8 was never approved by the legislature, via two-thirds majority or otherwise. (The legislature, to the contrary, has voted to legalize same-sex marriage twice, and was stopped only by the governor's veto.)

This is the crucial procedural difference between amendments and revisions: constitutional revisions must be proposed by two-thirds of the legislature (and then approved by a majority of the voters), while constitutional amendments can either be proposed in that matter or by the gathering of signatures of 5% of the voter total in the last election for governor. Proposition 8 was proposed by the latter method, and thus, if it is a revision, it is unconstitutional and should be invalidated.



Which merely shows that the only person "confused about the process of revision" is you.



That was not their argument. See above.



They did nothing of the sort. They merely refused to rule either way prior to passage.



...which rather obviously means that you cannot cite the July 16 decision as support for your position either. It did not "rule on [the] measure's validity" either way.



That's simply not true. There's plenty of precedent on the amendment/revision question.



The legislature voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Twice. What are you talking about? Where are you getting your information? Essentially everything you have said so far is provably, egregiously wrong.



Gay people do not have collective responsibility for what some gay people do.



...then you should not be objecting to our intolerance of the people who have so clearly shown intolerance of LGBT people, right?
actually you don't have to be a member of the legislature to propose a revision of the constitution. You just have to have them approve it by 2/3 vote.

Who is "they"? If Prop. 8 is invalidated, same-sex marriage will be legal again: In re Marriage Cases will stand. There's not a chance the proponents of Prop. 8 would get an equivalent through the legislature, especially not with the two-thirds requirement, so that will be the end of the matter for the foreseeable future: same-sex marriage will be legal and secure in California.

Your argument is solid except that:

The vote on Prop 8 proved that most voters, and hence most Californians, are religious when it comes to the issue of marriage.
In addition to allowing popular amendments to the Constitution, the Constitution also allows for recall.
This impacts the future of 8 in a couple of ways, assuming the Court strikes it down.

1. If the Legislators refuse to approve of Prop the voters can vote them out in the next election
The replacements can then move to approve Prop 8 for the popular vote.

2. The voters can proceed to recall the legislators from office for refusing to support Prop 8 and replace them with supporters of Prop 8. In which case, Prop 8 is eventually ends up back on the ballot and is reapproved and, hence, rendered invulnerable to challenge except, perhaps, from a federal perspective.

For the record, when SCOTUS said the 14th did not apply to Native Americans, they were saying it didn't apply to me because I am Native American. So I guess I don't have rights. :(

Your argument is solid except that:

The vote on Prop 8 proved that most voters, and hence most Californians, are religious when it comes to the issue of marriage.
In addition to allowing popular amendments to the Constitution, the Constitution also allows for recall.
This impacts the future of 8 in a couple of ways, assuming the Court strikes it down.

1. If the Legislators refuse to approve of Prop the voters can vote them out in the next election
The replacements can then move to approve Prop 8 for the popular vote.

2. The voters can proceed to recall the legislators from office for refusing to support Prop 8 and replace them with supporters of Prop 8. In which case, Prop 8 is eventually ends up back on the ballot and is reapproved and, hence, rendered invulnerable to challenge except, perhaps, from a federal perspective.This theory works nicely, as long as the voters remain of the same opinion about marriage. All of the above takes time, and time allows for change.

its a sad comment on california politics that a man who would turn 73 shortly after taking office is their best candidate.

Supposedly he remains the most popular among Democrats and liberals. But then again, I'm not Democrat so my source could be wrong regarding his popularity. But I have seen several sites citing him as their main candidate

This theory works nicely, as long as the voters remain of the same opinion about marriage. All of the above takes time, and time allows for change.

In politics, change is the only constant.

Are you saying that they don't have the right to legal representation?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.In fact, they don't. Criminal defendants do, but not civil litigants.

actually they have the right to whatever they legal representation they can afford. They do not have a right to a government funded defense attorney.

Does not mean people have to like the guy that takes their case.

All I know is that Starr was some white dude who tried to impeach another white dude.

actually you don't have to be a member of the legislature to propose a revision of the constitution.

"Propose" as in "present to the people for vote."

Obviously I can ask the legislature to do whatever I like.

1. If the Legislators refuse to approve of Prop the voters can vote them out in the next election

In theory, yes. In practice, this won't happen. The pro-Prop. 8 side is just not even remotely strong enough to do any such thing.

2. The voters can proceed to recall the legislators from office for refusing to support Prop 8 and replace them with supporters of Prop 8.

Not a chance.

actually Jerry Brown is THE main Democratic Candidate for Governor for the 2010 election and he has been watching the groundswell of support for gay marriage that has been surfacing across the nation.
Since when?

The vote on Prop 8 proved that most voters, and hence most Californians, are religious when it comes to the issue of marriage.
A subsequent poll showed 8% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 but would not do so now (feeling that they were lied to by the Yes on 8 campaign). I would like to see more polling on that, but if accurate, it indicates that only 44% would support it now that they know what it is.

A subsequent poll showed 8% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 but would not do so now (feeling that they were lied to by the Yes on 8 campaign). I would like to see more polling on that, but if accurate, it indicates that only 44% would support it now that they know what it is.

Indeed. Some people I know; voted because they believed the lies that gay marriage would be a mandatory lesson in the primary grades as the yes on campaign people implied in their ads.....

its a sad comment on california politics that a man who would turn 73 shortly after taking office is their best candidate.

His age means what exactly? How old is the shrub?

outgoing President Bush is only in his late fifties or early sixties isn't he?

His age means what exactly? How old is the shrub?

outgoing President Bush is only in his late fifties or early sixties isn't he?

He's 62

one of my two guesses was correct, that's the only important thing.

"Propose" as in "present to the people for vote."

Obviously I can ask the legislature to do whatever I like.



In theory, yes. In practice, this won't happen. The pro-Prop. 8 side is just not even remotely strong enough to do any such thing.



Not a chance.

Careful great one. One should not overestimate the political support for their cause lest they be humbled on election day.

one of my two guesses was correct, that's the only important thing.

What guesses were those??????

The 8% regretting their vote is interesting but not surprising as most Californians profess to oppose mixing church and state. But if the Mormon church was really involved to the extent the opponents of 8 are saying. What does that say about the relationship between church and state in our times.

Wow, this thread ballooned and got all precedenty.

What guesses were those??????

The 8% regretting their vote is interesting but not surprising as most Californians profess to oppose mixing church and state. But if the Mormon church was really involved to the extent the opponents of 8 are saying. What does that say about the relationship between church and state in our times.

I meant my guesses of Mr. Bush's age, the one where I said he was in his early sixties was correct, as he's 62.

What the Mormon Church's involvement at all tells me is that religion still finds ways of infiltrating into a SECULAR government and enforcing religious views on a SECULAR society.

You don't like Ken Starr? I never would have guessed...

Well I certainly won't invite him over for DnD on Friday nights.

Props to Ken Starr. I hope he is successful on all issues, and that he helps end same-sex "marriage" once and for all. I also hope this is the beginning of the end of the rogue judiciary that created this situation in the first place by usurping my rights as a voter.

God bless you, Mr. Starr!

Props to Ken Starr. I hope he is successful on all issues, and that he helps end same-sex "marriage" once and for all. I also hope this is the beginning of the end of the rogue judiciary that created this situation in the first place by usurping my rights as a voter.

God bless you, Mr. Starr!

The Balrog of Mordor has awoken once more. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!

Props to Ken Starr. I hope he is successful on all issues, and that he helps end same-sex "marriage" once and for all. I also hope this is the beginning of the end of the rogue judiciary that created this situation in the first place by usurping my rights as a voter.

God bless you, Mr. Starr!

So it is "rogue judiciary" now instead of "activist judges"?


I just love how the right-wing claims it is "rogue" or "activist" to judges to do their job.

Props to Ken Starr. I hope he is successful on all issues, and that he helps end same-sex "marriage" once and for all. I also hope this is the beginning of the end of the rogue judiciary that created this situation in the first place by usurping my rights as a voter.

God bless you, Mr. Starr!

You know, I am endlessly thankful for the list you just posted in the other thread of turn-offs. It's a strict enough list that you probably won't find someone who fits, and thus won't reproduce. As a result, you won't be passing on your bigoted attitudes to your children.

And yes, those attitudes are bigoted. They're just as bigoted now as they were when applied to blacks 50 years ago, or to any other group. This is the United States of America, a country built on the principles of "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All". This means that fundamental rights are not optional, and discrimination is not permitted. It may take years, decades, even centuries, but by God we will win in the end, and there is nothing bigoted homophobes like you can do about it.

The Balrog of Mordor has awoken once more. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!

Wow. Here I am, doing my best not to engage in flaming, and you bring up the Giant Flaming Demon of the Ancient World :D

Wow. Here I am, doing my best not to engage in flaming, and you bring up the Giant Flaming Demon of the Ancient World :D

Ony because you insist on misusing terms from LOTR in order to belittle your opponents. You sir, are the minion of Sauron.

Props to Ken Starr. I hope he is successful on all issues, and that he helps end same-sex "marriage" once and for all. I also hope this is the beginning of the end of the rogue judiciary that created this situation in the first place by usurping my rights as a voter.

God bless you, Mr. Starr!

You know, I am very interested as to why God opposes same sex marriage as much as you seem to think He does. Can you explain it, and tell me if the underlying reasoning should be applied consistently ?

E.g. if gay sex is bad because it cannot lead to reproduction, should ALL sex that cannot lead to reproduction (due to condoms, infertility and so on ) be forbidden ? And if science finds a way to let a man impregnate another (or a woman to impregnate another woman) - would same-sex then be ok ?

You know, I am endlessly thankful for the list you just posted in the other thread of turn-offs. It's a strict enough list that you probably won't find someone who fits, and thus won't reproduce. As a result, you won't be passing on your bigoted attitudes to your children.

And yes, those attitudes are bigoted. They're just as bigoted now as they were when applied to blacks 50 years ago, or to any other group. This is the United States of America, a country built on the principles of "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All". This means that fundamental rights are not optional, and discrimination is not permitted. It may take years, decades, even centuries, but by God we will win in the end, and there is nothing bigoted homophobes like you can do about it.

Gee, he called me the B-word AND the H-word. And in the same post, too. I feel so ashamed. :rolleyes:

You can talk about "fundamental rights" for "ALL" until Ellen Degeneres turns normal and steals Brad Pitt from Angelina Jolie. That doesn't make it an equal protection argument. Homosexuals already have the exact same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they refuse to exercise that right doesn't convert their refusal into a denial of any "right". There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

And yes, there is something we normal straight traditional marriage supporters "can do about it." We can vote on the issue, and we can remove from public office those rogue judges who create imaginary "fundamental rights" contrary to the decision of us voters, not to mention the entire history of the United States, Western culture, world civilization and every moral code and religious teaching devised therein.

BTW: don't worry about me finding a suitable wife. And when I do, be assured that I will have as many children as I can support, and that they will all be brought up with the proper beliefs and attitudes ;)

Gee, he called me the B-word AND the H-word. And in the same post, too. I feel so ashamed. :rolleyes:

You can talk about "fundamental rights" for "ALL" until Ellen Degeneres turns normal and steals Brad Pitt from Angelina Jolie. That doesn't make it an equal protection argument. Homosexuals already have the exact same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they refuse to exercise that right doesn't convert their refusal into a denial of any "right". There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

You know, if you were a real lawyer, you'd know that this argument has been tried, and failed, already.

You can talk about "fundamental rights" for "ALL" until Ellen Degeneres turns normal and steals Brad Pitt from Angelina Jolie. That doesn't make it an equal protection argument. Homosexuals already have the exact same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they refuse to exercise that right doesn't convert their refusal into a denial of any "right". There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

If you wanna play it that way, lets see you explain away gender discrimination in marriage? A man cannot marry a man but a woman can marry a man.

And yes, there is something we normal straight traditional marriage supporters "can do about it." We can vote on the issue, and we can remove from public office those rogue judges who create imaginary "fundamental rights" contrary to the decision of us voters, not to mention the entire history of the United States, Western culture, world civilization and every moral code and religious teaching devised therein.

the judges did their job and should be punished. how dare they.

G
And when I do, be assured that I will have as many children as I can support, and that they will all be brought up with the proper beliefs and attitudes ;)

"Remember, kids: People who disagree with you on the internet are Orcs and Goblins, and, in the name of the Men of the West, you must ignore their more successful arguments, lest you shame the House of Númenor."

"Remember, kids: People who disagree with you on the internet are Orcs and Goblins, and, in the name of the Men of the West, you must ignore their more successful arguments, lest you shame the House of Númenor."

to the mines of mordor!

"Remember, kids: People who disagree with you on the internet are Orcs and Goblins, and, in the name of the Men of the West, you must ignore their more successful arguments, lest you shame the House of Númenor."

"And remember that if you don't pray to God, the Eye of Obama will gaze upon you and you will be taken to Mordor- er the White House."

You know, if you were a real lawyer, you'd know that this argument has been tried, and failed, already.

And NM ran away :( Pity - cause I truly want my question answered.

And NM ran away :( Pity - cause I truly want my question answered.
Then you should have addressed it to someone else.

Then you should have addressed it to someone else.

But - HE seems to be the One. The One who knows and understands Gods innermost Thoughts and Reasonings.

Who else would be able to answer a question like "if science makes it possible for two men or two women to reproduce - would their union be ok" from his view ?

But - HE seems to be the One. The One who knows and understands Gods innermost Thoughts and Reasonings.

Who else would be able to answer a question like "if science makes it possible for two men or two women to reproduce - would their union be ok" from his view ?
He only knows the thoughts of one of those Lovecraftian gods, though -- you know, the blind idiots tootling away on flutes in nether pits of eternal madness under an eldritch moon 'n stuff.

Gee, he called me the B-word AND the H-word. And in the same post, too. I feel so ashamed. :rolleyes:

You can talk about "fundamental rights" for "ALL" until Ellen Degeneres turns normal and steals Brad Pitt from Angelina Jolie. That doesn't make it an equal protection argument. Homosexuals already have the exact same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they refuse to exercise that right doesn't convert their refusal into a denial of any "right". There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

And yes, there is something we normal straight traditional marriage supporters "can do about it." We can vote on the issue, and we can remove from public office those rogue judges who create imaginary "fundamental rights" contrary to the decision of us voters, not to mention the entire history of the United States, Western culture, world civilization and every moral code and religious teaching devised therein.

BTW: don't worry about me finding a suitable wife. And when I do, be assured that I will have as many children as I can support, and that they will all be brought up with the proper beliefs and attitudes ;)

You're an idiot. You are a giant idiot. End of story.

You're an idiot. You are a giant idiot. End of story.

But knowing that he's squirming, bitching and howling over the impending Obama presidency makes it all worthwhile to watch, laugh and pick apart his rants.

But knowing that he's squirming, bitching and howling over the impending Obama presidency makes it all worthwhile to watch, laugh and pick apart his rants.

and just think, if the cali supreme court overturns Prop 8 as unconstitutional revision, imagine the angst!

I guess he burned through the advance royalties on the book deal, or something, or maybe he feels he needs to renew his fifteen minutes.


Just a thought: to my mind, there seems to be a whole generation of people in our country who deeply regret that they weren't born during the McCarthy Era so they could have an easily identified "enemy" to go chasing after, and spend a lot of time in courts pruriently wallowing in people's private lives and then reading about themselves in the newspapers, month after month. All they have left to them is pursuing people through the courts for their personal sexual preferences.

In Starr's case there may be other things going on. He just doesn't seem to know the difference between what should be left private and what should be out in public, and he can always find a rationalization for why he should know (and butt into) everybody's business. And for reasons best known to himself and perhaps his mommy, he seems to have an over-weening belief in himself as the champion of American morality.

I wonder what would happen if his home and computer were searched. What would be there? Hard-core porn? Kiddie porn? Snuff? I can't help wondering if he's another J Edgar -- railing in public against corruption and sexual immorality, while privately slipping off to Mafia-owned resorts so he could secretly cross-dress and engage in the sexual practices he publicly condemned in others.

Just a thought: to my mind, there seems to be a whole generation of people in our country who deeply regret that they weren't born during the McCarthy Era so they could have an easily identified "enemy" to go chasing after, and spend a lot of time in courts pruriently wallowing in people's private lives and then reading about themselves in the newspapers, month after month. All they have left to them is pursuing people through the courts for their personal sexual preferences.

In Starr's case there may be other things going on. He just doesn't seem to know the difference between what should be left private and what should be out in public, and he can always find a rationalization for why he should know (and butt into) everybody's business. And for reasons best known to himself and perhaps his mommy, he seems to have an over-weening belief in himself as the champion of American morality.

I wonder what would happen if his home and computer were searched. What would be there? Hard-core porn? Kiddie porn? Snuff? I can't help wondering if he's another J Edgar -- railing in public against corruption and sexual immorality, while privately slipping off to Mafia-owned resorts so he could secretly cross-dress and engage in the sexual practices he publicly condemned in others.

The more morally uptight and indignant a Republican, the dirtier the laundries in the closet. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig ring a bell?

Gee, he called me the B-word AND the H-word. And in the same post, too. I feel so ashamed. :rolleyes:

You can talk about "fundamental rights" for "ALL" until Ellen Degeneres turns normal and steals Brad Pitt from Angelina Jolie. That doesn't make it an equal protection argument. Homosexuals already have the exact same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they refuse to exercise that right doesn't convert their refusal into a denial of any "right". There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

And yes, there is something we normal straight traditional marriage supporters "can do about it." We can vote on the issue, and we can remove from public office those rogue judges who create imaginary "fundamental rights" contrary to the decision of us voters, not to mention the entire history of the United States, Western culture, world civilization and every moral code and religious teaching devised therein.

BTW: don't worry about me finding a suitable wife. And when I do, be assured that I will have as many children as I can support, and that they will all be brought up with the proper beliefs and attitudes ;)

Do you think that marriage between people of different races should be up for vote? Serious question.

But knowing that he's squirming, bitching and howling over the impending Obama presidency makes it all worthwhile to watch, laugh and pick apart his rants.

Not really. I've spent far better time asleep.

Gee, he called me the B-word AND the H-word. And in the same post, too. I feel so ashamed. :rolleyes:

You can talk about "fundamental rights" for "ALL" until Ellen Degeneres turns normal and steals Brad Pitt from Angelina Jolie. That doesn't make it an equal protection argument. Homosexuals already have the exact same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they refuse to exercise that right doesn't convert their refusal into a denial of any "right". There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

And yes, there is something we normal straight traditional marriage supporters "can do about it." We can vote on the issue, and we can remove from public office those rogue judges who create imaginary "fundamental rights" contrary to the decision of us voters, not to mention the entire history of the United States, Western culture, world civilization and every moral code and religious teaching devised therein.

BTW: don't worry about me finding a suitable wife. And when I do, be assured that I will have as many children as I can support, and that they will all be brought up with the proper beliefs and attitudes ;)

My Fabulous Response:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo134/unhealthytruthseeker/tehebilghez.jpg?t=1229898065

My Fabulous Response:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo134/unhealthytruthseeker/tehebilghez.jpg?t=1229898065

And mine http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg

And mine http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg

Much funnier with the motivational poster image.

He only knows the thoughts of one of those Lovecraftian gods, though -- you know, the blind idiots tootling away on flutes in nether pits of eternal madness under an eldritch moon 'n stuff.

Azathoth.

Azathoth.
Yeah, that one.

The more morally uptight and indignant a Republican, the dirtier the laundries in the closet. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig ring a bell?


I was trying to avoid making my comments partisan, but yes, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. I would disagree with you only to the extent that I'd take out the word "Republican" and put in the phrase "moral crusader". I don't think this attitude is limited to Republicans, Christians, or any other easy targets. Look hard enough and you can see it in Democrats, third-party liberals, socialists, and anarchists. You can see it in some forms of just about any religion there is, and in some people who call themselves atheists. I don't see that authoritarian fundamentalism "belongs to" anyone in particular; most of us -- maybe all of us -- are capable of it given the right conditions. If we are sloppy or lazy or disingenuous about opposing it, we risk perpetuating its power in others. But ironically, if we become too militant about trying to stamp it out, rather than simply aiming to out-compete it in the arena of logic and allegiance, we risk extending its power in ourselves.

There are few things more pathetic to watch (or more potentially dangerous to the rest of us) than two oppositely positioned but equally extreme authoritarian fundamentalists squaring off with each other. Witness George Bush and Usama bin Laden. Both are right in their own eyes, both are willing to distort the teachings of their own chosen faith in order to justify conducting what they believe to be a kind of "holy war"* to stop "evil-doers", both have carried out actions that show their willingness to ignore the humanity of others in order to "win", and both apparently regard any suggestion that they need to calm down a bit and let wiser heads prevail as a kind of betrayal of The Cause, a surrender to The Enemy.

------------------
* To save anyone posting an outraged "are you comparing Bush's wars with bin Laden's terrorism?", let me be precise: I regard Bush's "crusade" as the mirror-image to bin Laden's "jihad".

My Fabulous Response:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo134/unhealthytruthseeker/tehebilghez.jpg?t=1229898065

This is what cracks me up. People who simultaneously claim to worship a man who preached tolerance and love and personal focus, rather than judgement of others, and claim that they will do anything to force out anyone who doesn't force their views on others legally, regardless of what other good that person might do.

So basically, they put judging others above all else, hate above love, intolerance above tolerance, and basically tell Jesus the Christ that his teachings are less important than feigned righteousness.

Fortunately, people like that existed in time of Jesus as well. He was very clear about his view of them.

Fortunately, people like that existed in time of Jesus as well. He was very clear about his view of them.

And yet homosexuals existed, and not one word about them....

Isn't there a theory about the guy jesus brought back to life being gay or something like that?

I was trying to avoid making my comments partisan, but yes, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. I would disagree with you only to the extent that I'd take out the word "Republican" and put in the phrase "moral crusader". I don't think this attitude is limited to Republicans, Christians, or any other easy targets. Look hard enough and you can see it in Democrats, third-party liberals, socialists, and anarchists. You can see it in some forms of just about any religion there is, and in some people who call themselves atheists. I don't see that authoritarian fundamentalism "belongs to" anyone in particular; most of us -- maybe all of us -- are capable of it given the right conditions. If we are sloppy or lazy or disingenuous about opposing it, we risk perpetuating its power in others. But ironically, if we become too militant about trying to stamp it out, rather than simply aiming to out-compete it in the arena of logic and allegiance, we risk extending its power in ourselves.

There are few things more pathetic to watch (or more potentially dangerous to the rest of us) than two oppositely positioned but equally extreme authoritarian fundamentalists squaring off with each other. Witness George Bush and Usama bin Laden. Both are right in their own eyes, both are willing to distort the teachings of their own chosen faith in order to justify conducting what they believe to be a kind of "holy war"* to stop "evil-doers", both have carried out actions that show their willingness to ignore the humanity of others in order to "win", and both apparently regard any suggestion that they need to calm down a bit and let wiser heads prevail as a kind of betrayal of The Cause, a surrender to The Enemy.

------------------
* To save anyone posting an outraged "are you comparing Bush's wars with bin Laden's terrorism?", let me be precise: I regard Bush's "crusade" as the mirror-image to bin Laden's "jihad".

I think Freud would have a field day with today's political arena. The whole moral crusade against teh ebil ghez!!!11!sin(Pi/2)!!1 is a textbook example of a reaction formation. I forgot who did the research, but I know that someone did a study a while back showing that extremely homophobic males identifying as straight tend to have a much higher erotic response to gay porn than non-homophobic males identifying as straight. Not surprising, but still absolutely hilarious. I tell you, if there is a god, he/she certainly seems to have a taste for irony.

There is NO "fundamental right" to marry any person or persons of one's choice.

Actually, there is, provided they are of age. Thought you were a lawyer? Or are you just a shitty one?


and just think, if the cali supreme court overturns Prop 8 as unconstitutional revision, imagine the angst!

It will put 13 year old mall goths to shame, it will.

It will put 13 year old mall goths to shame, it will.

it will be beautiful!

Actually everyone has a right to a civil marriage. The state can't force a church or a pastor to preside over a wedding of anyone. That has to be entirely voluntary. But if its a civil magistrate, they should be required to marry everyone or no one. I think that at least one county actually made that decision. They decided they would no longer preside over any marriages, be they straight or gay. The rest went with the gay marriages.

My Fabulous Response:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo134/unhealthytruthseeker/tehebilghez.jpg?t=1229898065

what is the website for making those motivational posters again?

what is the website for making those motivational posters again?


http://diy.despair.com/motivator.php (http://diy.despair.com/motivator.php)

what is the website for making those motivational posters again?

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/motivator.php

with ken starr they will likely over turn prop 8. i swear that guy makes bush look like he has a high school diploma.

with ken starr they will likely over turn prop 8. i swear that guy makes bush look like he has a high school diploma.

I don't know, he successfully got a popular president impeached. No small feat.

I don't know, he successfully got a popular president impeached. No small feat.

the republicans during that session of congress would have impeached clinton for jay walking during the presidental run.

the republicans during that session of congress would have impeached clinton for jay walking during the presidental run.
true. considering that he spent 10s of millions of dollars and the only thing he could find to get clinton on was an investigation-internal lie about an issue that had utterly nothing to do with his investigation... not so much brilliant as serving the cause.

true. considering that he spent 10s of millions of dollars and the only thing he could find to get clinton on was an investigation-internal lie about an issue that had utterly nothing to do with his investigation... not so much brilliant as serving the cause.

for 10 million dollars i could have had a hooker dead on the white house lawn covered in presidental seman.

for 10 million dollars i could have had a hooker dead on the white house lawn covered in presidental seman.
who couldnt?


ken star thats who! the incompetent boob!

for 10 million dollars i could have had a hooker dead on the white house lawn covered in presidental semen.

$40M, and change, total. Complete waste. Clinton's finances, acquaintences, land deals, flings, and more were investigated. They investigated the guy who was AR governor after him, Hillary's land deals and finances, Vince Foster, travel agents...and on and on. How much of that kind of attention did Shrub get?

How much of that kind of attention did Shrub get?

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

Because it bullied me in school.


And THAT's TEN THOUSAND. Finally, free to edit the commentary line! Woohoo!

Because it bullied me in school.


And THAT's TEN THOUSAND. Finally, free to edit the commentary line! Woohoo!

There should be some sort of mocking messege that appears on NSG when you reach 10,000 posts. Sort of like that South Park where Stan and Kyle get 1 million points in Guitar Hero *nods*

There should be some sort of mocking messege that appears on NSG when you reach 10,000 posts. Sort of like that South Park where Stan and Kyle get 1 million points in Guitar Hero *nods*

Except I can't find where I get to make the edit. It isn't in the User CP. Hmmm....