Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Starting at 9 a.m. today, the state's Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against the validity of Proposition 8, the controversial November ballot measure that barred same-sex unions in California by declaring marriage only for a man and a woman.

The debate will turn on the constitutional right of equal protection, the role of the judiciary and the power of the electorate in configuring the state constitution.


The high court's seven justices have asked for arguments on three key questions:

• Should Proposition 8 have been submitted to voters as a "revision" to the constitution, which would have required lawmakers to place it on the ballot? The measure made the ballot via initiative, as an "amendment" to the constitution.

• Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers provisions of the constitution because it should have been approved by the Legislature first?

• If the Proposition 8 is constitutional, what is to become of the estimated 19,000 same-sex marriages performed between June 16 and the passage of the measure on Nov. 4?

Ah...the irony. ORAL arguments against same-sex marriage.

AZGrizFan wrote:Ah...the irony. ORAL arguments against same-sex marriage.

The second I typed that, I knew someone would comment on it...

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Ah...the irony. ORAL arguments against same-sex marriage.

The second I typed that, I knew someone would comment on it...

And you just KNEW that someone would be me, no?

I hadn't paid any attention to this, but somebody on NPR this moring (mayor of San Fran?) pointed out that if established rights for a protected class or minority can be overturned by a simple majority vote, we might be stepping on a slippery slope.

It is a very interesting consequence in my point of view.

This needs to happen. It ain't fvcking Dixon, IL, 1949, anymore.



"You know, Pops, the fags and niqqers are getting kinda restless these days."

hank scorpio wrote:I hadn't paid any attention to this, but somebody on NPR this moring (mayor of San Fran?) pointed out that if established rights for a protected class or minority can be overturned by a simple majority vote, we might be stepping on a slippery slope.

It is a very interesting consequence in my point of view.

This is the heart of the argument. The backers of Prop 8 did not follow constitutional procedures in this case.

The Prop 8 supporters want my friends Dave and Steve's marriage to be declared non-existant

dbackjon wrote:The Prop 8 supporters want my friends Dave and Steve's marriage to be declared non-existant

Looking at that picture, why would anyone want to interfere with anyone's personal business?

dbackjon wrote:

hank scorpio wrote:I hadn't paid any attention to this, but somebody on NPR this moring (mayor of San Fran?) pointed out that if established rights for a protected class or minority can be overturned by a simple majority vote, we might be stepping on a slippery slope.

It is a very interesting consequence in my point of view.

This is the heart of the argument. The backers of Prop 8 did not follow constitutional procedures in this case.

Agreed....not knowing the specifics of the arguments, if it's as simple as whether a simple majority of the voters can overturn an unpopular law (and I'm sure it's not), then I wouldn't want to be a black man in bama, missisissippi, SC..........

Cap'n Cat wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The Prop 8 supporters want my friends Dave and Steve's marriage to be declared non-existant

Looking at that picture, why would anyone want to interfere with anyone's personal business?

I can agree with that sentiment, that's why I am not a supporter of big government and government sanctioned marriage. The more powerful the government, the more it can interfere in personal business.

dbackjon wrote:The Prop 8 supporters want my friends Dave and Steve's marriage to be declared non-existant

fucking queers...

You know citdog, those fucking queers could both tear your head off and shit down your throat.

Steve was in the army, Dave is a retired (for now) police officer.

dbackjon wrote:You know citdog, those f**k[*] queers could both tear your head off and shit down your throat.

Steve was in the army, Dave is a retired (for now) police officer.

makes me sick

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You know citdog, those f**k[*] queers could both tear your head off and shit down your throat.

Steve was in the army, Dave is a retired (for now) police officer.

makes me sick

that two gay guys could take you down?

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You know citdog, those f**k[*] queers could both tear your head off and shit down your throat.

Steve was in the army, Dave is a retired (for now) police officer.

makes me sick

Well stop huffing paint while you jerk off to their picture, dummy.

WTAG wrote:

citdog wrote:
makes me sick

Well stop huffing paint while you jerk off to their picture, dummy.

so you're out of the closet now as well

They'll laugh in yer mug, too, if you even mention The Citadel.

citdog wrote:

WTAG wrote:
Well stop huffing paint while you jerk off to their picture, dummy.

so you're out of the closet now as well

Just admit it Citdog. Your only real problem is that you attended THE CITADEL and got brainwashed.

The flip side of the coin to Scorpio's argument would be the elimination of checks and balances. If courts are empowered to CREATE newly recognized classes with all "afforded" rights...what's to prevent them from running amuck...hence...in the infamous "Cetaceans-v-Bush" case when attorney Lanny Sinkin unsuccessfully attempted to gain standing for animals to sue in their own name...

...the ruling by the 9th Circus Court...

http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/Nation ... tacean.htm

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed that marine mammals do not have standing to sue in their own name.

Background
The Cetacean Community (Cetaceans), the name given to the world’s whales, dolphins and porpoises by their self-appointed attorney, filed suit against President Bush and the Secretary of Defense over the Navy’s use of SURTASS LFA sonar. The Navy developed this sonar system to assist in the detection of quiet submarines at long range. The SURTASS LFA sonar consists of an active component that emits a loud sonar pulse and a passive listening component. The Cetaceans contend that the Navy’s use of the sonar harms them by disrupting biologically important behaviors, including feeding and mating, and causing tissue damage.

There is a permanent injunction restricting the Navy’s routine peacetime use of SURTASS LFA sonar “in areas that are particularly rich in marine life” because of the well-recognized negative effects of underwater noise on marine mammals.1 The Cetaceans did not challenge the current restrictions, but sought an order compelling the Secretary of Defense to consult with NOAA Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), apply for a letter of authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and prepare an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for its use during wartime. The Cetaceans claimed they had standing to sue in their own name because of a Ninth Circuit decision in which the court stated the Hawaiian Palila bird, “has legal status and wings its way into federal court as a plaintiff in its own right.”

While I realize this is an extreme example...Obese people have already begun suing businesses and employers and the courts in some states have recognized them as a discriminated "class", who by the fact of their BMI, obtained unique constitutional recognition and protections. The day will is fast approaching when calling someone a "fat ass" will be classifed as a hate crime.

How far do we want to take this?

I've preached this for the past 30+ years...

The solution is elimination of all "classes", judicial recognition of objective "merit" tests, and enforcement of near draconian penalties for offenders.
For example, when hired for a job, the employer must utilize objective criteria when evaluating an employee. Application of subjective standards, appearance, weight, hair color, sexual preference, favorite sports team, in other words, personal traits and lifestyle choices that have no effect on the individual's ability to do the job CANNOT BE FACTORED INTO HIRING QUALIFICATIONS!!!
Similar methods for housing regulation, school admissions, or admittance to/patronage of businesses would not be difficult to craft. Currently, only people who fall into the recognized classes are afforded any realistic protections. Don't believe me? Just open the paper. Depending on the day of the week and industry, there's overt discrimination taking place openly, publicly, with no impunity.

Would the "merit/punishment" method eliminate all the debate and litigation...no, but it would definitely REDUCE the actionable complaints by golddigging no'er do wells and lawyers seeking to cash in on this legal nightmare...

...which is the prinicpal reason politicians (read: lawyers) will never let it happen.

grizzaholic wrote:

citdog wrote:
so you're out of the closet now as well

Just admit it Citdog. Your only real problem is that you attended THE CITADEL and got brainwashed.

some people have no shame.......you're right i sure did get brainwashed.....

citdog wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Just admit it Citdog. Your only real problem is that you attended THE CITADEL and got brainwashed.

some people have no shame.......you're right i sure did get brainwashed.....

I think they forgot to rinse.