- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
There's The CT I know! Condescending and dismissive.
Sorry. The burden is on your side, not mine.
How the hell is the burden on my side when the appeals court ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Shifting the burden of proof is pretty pathetic LD.
But here. The state has an interest in regulating marriage. It has no interest at all in expanding the traditionally understood definition of the term to include members of the same sex. Easy.
Irrelevant to this case. The Supreme Court of California already expanded the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Prop 8 then came in and effectively took away the right for same sex couples to designate their civil partnerships as marriages. That means in order to justify Prop 8, you have to argue why the state has an interest in taking away the right for same sex couples to designate their civil partnerships as marriages.
Can you explain in your own words what state interests Smith suggested might be served by upholding Prop 8?
Parroting the dissenting opinion. Jesus. I've quoted and paraphrased Reinhardt's opinion and Smith's. And my own words matter not one wit - I'm not on the court. And neither are you.
In the comment you made above, you just proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand this case on the most basic level.
Last edited: