• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will CA do the right thing and overturn Prop 8?

Will the CA courts overturn Prop 8?


  • Total voters
    27
You have successfuly pointed out the shortcomings of any court decisions that might be made against the amendment. I was wondering how the generally accepted notion that gay marriage will eventually be allowed in all 50 states affects your views if at all?

That's irrelevant (or at least should be) to the question at hand. This is about CA law and CA law alone.
 
Novel precedents generally make for bad law. It is one reason courts are institutionally reluctant to stray far from prior rulings.

For better or worse, Proposition 8 is properly constructed to amend the California Constitution. For that reason, the California Supreme Court should not invalidate it.

Except that it runs counter to prior sections of the CA constitution.
 
That's irrelevant (or at least should be) to the question at hand. This is about CA law and CA law alone.
Not exactly...if the court decides that the amendment was unconstitutional...right or wrong, gays could be marrying right and left for as long as the judgement holds up. This thread is about overturning Prop 8 and that may happen for a length of time regardless of California law.
 
Not exactly...if the court decides that the amendment was unconstitutional...right or wrong, gays could be marrying right and left for as long as the judgement holds up. This thread is about overturning Prop 8 and that may happen for a length of time regardless of California law.

?

How does that not fall within the spectrum of "California law"?
 
Except that it runs counter to prior sections of the CA constitution.
Even assuming this is true (an assumption I already challenge), the very nature of an amendment is to alter a constitution. The only relevance this has (or could possibly have) is in deciding whether the statutory language of Proposition 8 is revisory in nature, and thus was improperly presented to the electorate.

If the statutory language is not revisory in nature, the impact of the language upon the rest of the constitution is necessarily moot.
 
The overwhelming majority of the suporters of the Messiah voted for the discriminatory Proposition 8. No way is a court going to swim upstream against the mindless masses of horny mating salmon and overturn that Proposition.
 
What is pure BS is the canard that people are saying any such thing.

The will of the people was to pass Prop 8. The Amendment should stand.

No, when the will of the mob violates the rights of the minority, the will of the mob is supposed to be set aside.
 
?

How does that not fall within the spectrum of "California law"?
Of course it does...unconstituional California law if I understand Celticlord's case. But restricting conversation to exclude personal opinion on a political discussion site in a thread about gay marriage seems stuffy.
 
No, when the will of the mob violates the rights of the minority, the will of the mob is supposed to be set aside.

Everything that the majority does affects the rights of the minority. That's how democracy works.

Of course it does...unconstituional California law if I understand Celticlord's case. But restricting conversation to exclude personal opinion on a political discussion site in a thread about gay marriage seems stuffy.

I don't think he was trying to exclude personal opinion, I think his point was that what an individual person thinks is "right" is not relevant when discussing what a court will determine is legally right.
 
I don't think he was trying to exclude personal opinion, I think his point was that what an individual person thinks is "right" is not relevant when discussing what a court will determine is legally right.
That is it exactly. As I stated previously, I am opposed to any government regulation of marriage, yet, from all that I have read on Proposition 8, I do not see any sustainable legal challenge to its implementation within the California Constitution.
 
It is getting to the final days. The decision on CA's Prop 8 is coming up this week. Will the courts stand up for civil rights as they always have. Will they fight for the 4% of Americans that have no voice? Will they allow the mob rule that can be an ugly thing?

I do believe that the courts will do the right thing and overturn Prop 8! :2wave:

You know, that's hard for me to call off-the-cuff since I haven't been keeping up with the in-court arguments.

If I had to put money on it...I'd say they will strike it down. But I also bet that Mc.Cain would win the election, and that cost me my sig for a month ;)

I think Prop8 is legal, I just don't think the court has much regard for anything outside their agenda.
 
The Prop 8 amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.

Gays in CA already have access to every civil right under existing Civil Union law.

The ONLY thing this is about is the word "marriage".
 
yet, from all that I have read on Proposition 8, I do not see any sustainable legal challenge to its implementation within the California Constitution.

Why not? Granted my argument doesn't have any precedent (at least yet), but there is no precedent in the opposite direction either. Considering that the Courts already decided that the constitution prevented banning marriage, there are better than even odds than the court will conclude that Prop 8 is a revision.

Its not like the court would have to do anything other than cite section 7 and explain how prop 8 would give certain groups special privileges. You would get into much more convoluted arguments trying to explain how banning gays from marrying is somehow not discriminating.

Also, if you look at the language, section 7 would also allow the court to accept prop 8 but then ban all marriage in general to avoid special privileges. I agree with your feelings in getting the government out of marriage, but I doubt the courts would take such a route. Still, it would not be out of their authority to do so.
 
Why not? Granted my argument doesn't have any precedent (at least yet), but there is no precedent in the opposite direction either. Considering that the Courts already decided that the constitution prevented banning marriage, there are better than even odds than the court will conclude that Prop 8 is a revision.

That's debatable. The mere fact that the California Constitution, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, did not give the California government the power to bar gay marriage before Proposition 8 does not make Proposition 8 automatically revisory in nature. The fact that the only practical impact of Proposition 8 is to empower the government to do what it legally was prohibited from doing before, and that only as regards the sacrament of marriage, gives the Proposition a narrowness and singularity of scope that, per the standards articulated in Livermore, Amador, and McFadden, qualify the Proposition as an Amendment and not a revision.

Its not like the court would have to do anything other than cite section 7 and explain how prop 8 would give certain groups special privileges. You would get into much more convoluted arguments trying to explain how banning gays from marrying is somehow not discriminating.
That argument only holds if the change is of such great impact as to amount to a revision rather than an amendment. If the statutory language of Proposition 8 is not revisory in nature, this argument loses all relevance.

Also, if you look at the language, section 7 would also allow the court to accept prop 8 but then ban all marriage in general to avoid special privileges. I agree with your feelings in getting the government out of marriage, but I doubt the courts would take such a route. Still, it would not be out of their authority to do so.
Yes it would. That would be an unconscionable and unwarranted usurpation of legislative prerogative by the judiciary--not to mention being an amazingly stupid thing to do.
 
Gays in CA already have access to every civil right under existing Civil Union law.

The ONLY thing this is about is the word "marriage".
I can't prove it...but I don't believe anti gay marriage folks are really that concerned with the institution of marriage. I don't believe they are genuinly fearful of how two women getting married 3000 miles away will compromise the fabric of thier marriage. This is not completely about marriage...it is also about denial of thier dissapproval of gays for many. I'll not assume this to be the case with you Jerry, but it is with plenty of anti gay Americans. Fifty years from now...they're going to make movies where anti gay people will be portrayed as filthy bigots standing in the way of the liberation of gays.
 
Last edited:
I can't prove it...but I don't believe anti gay marriage folks are really that concerned with the institution of marriage. I don't believe they are genuinly fearful of how two women getting married 3000 miles away will compromise the fabric of thier marriage. This is not completely about marriage...it is also about denial of thier dissapproval of gays for many. I'll not assume this to be the case with you Jerry, but it is with plenty of anti gay Americans. Fifty years from now...they're going to make movies where anti gay people will be portrayed as filthy bigots standing in the way of the liberation of gays.

I wear that truth on my sleeve every time I debate the issue.

Prop8, both support and opposition, is about social acceptance of the gay identity.

Social acceptance is not something any court can grant. Take desegregation, for example. Brown-v-Board of Education hasn't worked yet, and we're 50 years later. In fact, I've recently seen data in the Education forum demonstrating that people typically self-segregate by race (prison gange being another example, nearly all are race-based) defeating the purpose behind Brown for all but the rare exception.

Me personally, I reject the 'gay-identity' as the product of a biological error, and so I will not likely ever accept gay-marriage even when it is finally legalized on the Federal level.

The surest way for gays to win the support of folks like myself is to make gay-marriage about the family, instead of about personal rights as it is now....but no one is yet doing this.
 
Last edited:
Fifty years from now...they're going to make movies where anti gay people will be portrayed as filthy bigots standing in the way of the liberation of gays.
People make movies showing all sorts of people as being both good and bad.

John Ford portrayed the Apache Indians sympathetically in "Fort Apache". Eight years later, in "The Searchers," he had a much less sympathetic view of Comanches.

What movies portray about people and what people actually are rarely coincide.
 
People make movies showing all sorts of people as being both good and bad.

John Ford portrayed the Apache Indians sympathetically in "Fort Apache". Eight years later, in "The Searchers," he had a much less sympathetic view of Comanches.

What movies portray about people and what people actually are rarely coincide.
Okay, fair enough. How about it put this way...the prevailing social values in America in 50 years will likely have us looking upon anti gay folks in the same way we look at people who opposed inter-racial marriage in the 40's and 50's. And people who oppossed the rights of blacks earlier. And the men who opposed the right of a woman to vote. And folks who supported the legality of slavery. And so on.

Can you admit that gay marriage, nationwide by state, will be allowed in most if not all states eventually? Or do you think otherwise?
 
The surest way for gays to win the support of folks like myself is to make gay-marriage about the family, instead of about personal rights as it is now....but no one is yet doing this.
I am confident enough to say this without asking them, but I am absolutely sure the gay people I know could care less wether or not you support them. In fact...opinons from folks like yourself, once taken to the voting booth, are simply meddling in the lives of gays. To most of the gays I know...the idea of marriage isn't a big deal. The big deal is that a bunch of people who don't know them are islolating thier demographic and making decisions about thier lives based on thier religion or homophobia.

Please, I mean no offense and correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I am confident enough to say this without asking them, but I am absolutely sure the gay people I know could care less wether or not you support them. In fact...opinons from folks like yourself, once taken to the voting booth, are simply meddling in the lives of gays. To most of the gays I know...the idea of marriage isn't a big deal. The big deal is that a bunch of people who don't know them are islolating thier demographic and making decisions about thier lives based on thier religion or homophobia.

Please, I mean no offense and correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll trade you the Gay-Marriage card if you trade me the Gun-Free School-Zone card.
 
Okay, fair enough. How about it put this way...the prevailing social values in America in 50 years will likely have us looking upon anti gay folks in the same way we look at people who opposed inter-racial marriage in the 40's and 50's. And people who oppossed the rights of blacks earlier. And the men who opposed the right of a woman to vote. And folks who supported the legality of slavery. And so on.

You mean in 50 years will people engage in the same superficial revisionist demonizing of moralities and philosophies they reject and therefore don't bother to study that they do today? Sadly, I am quite certain that will be the case. The most persistent bigotry on the face of the planet is the belief in one's own moral supremacy.

Can you admit that gay marriage, nationwide by state, will be allowed in most if not all states eventually? Or do you think otherwise?
The current trend is towards acceptance of gay marriage. There is no denying that.

Will it become the national norm? That is hard to say.

Plessy v Ferguson
, which enshrined the standard of "Separate but equal" was not heard until 1896--a full 30 years after the end of the Civil War. Official segregation in the federal government occurred for the first time since the Civil War only during Woodrow Wilson's administration, nearly 20 years after Plessy v Ferguson. The anti-miscegenation law overturned by Loving v Virginia was passed in 1924--more than a half century after the Civil War and nearly 30 years after Plessy v Ferguson.

It is possible the trend towards national acceptance towards gay marriage will continue. It may be that, for whatever reason, a societal backlash against gay marriage will occur and the trend will reverse itself. Extrapolating the trend towards an ultimate outcome presumes a level of understanding of human behavior greater than that which is currently supported.
 
It is possible the trend towards national acceptance towards gay marriage will continue. It may be that, for whatever reason, a societal backlash against gay marriage will occur and the trend will reverse itself. Extrapolating the trend towards an ultimate outcome presumes a level of understanding of human behavior greater than that which is currently supported.
Guess I'm gonna find out if I live to be 95. I can't even envision what sort of societal backlash could happen. What could possibly cause one unless gay marriage produces negative consequences.

Actualy, it just dawned on me...if the spread of Aids would have coincided with the legalization of gay marriage...Christians and homophobics would scapegoat the marriage as the cause. So I take it back, I see what you mean.
 
Last edited:
You mean in 50 years will people engage in the same superficial revisionist demonizing of moralities and philosophies they reject and therefore don't bother to study that they do today? Sadly, I am quite certain that will be the case. The most persistent bigotry on the face of the planet is the belief in one's own moral supremacy.
Does that mean you've studied slavery, the early women's rights movement, and the civil rights movement...and found aspects of slavery, denial of women's rights, and denial of civil rights to be moraly and philosophically sound?

I agree that the most oppressive bigotry comes from someone, or a group, that thinks they're moraly supreme...like the anti gay marriage folks.
 
Does that mean you've studied slavery, the early women's rights movement, and the civil rights movement...and found aspects of slavery, denial of women's rights, and denial of civil rights to be moraly and philosophically sound?

It means I've studied those things and found the actual history to be very different from the superficial pastiche of moralizing most people put upon them.

I agree that the most oppressive bigotry comes from someone, or a group, that thinks they're moraly supreme...like the anti gay marriage folks.
Cute. Include the pro-gay marriage folk in that sentence and you have something worth reaction besides scorn and contempt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom