|
0 members (),
24
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,593
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
The length of this thread is, I think, a testament to the significance of the issue - not just in California - but throughout the United States. I think there are many of us that do see this as a seminal moment in the development of our nation. We are facing some of the most fundamental issues of our history, and this is the backdrop against which the consideration of our founding principles are being examined. That is the reason that I am so focused on it.
What are our foundational principles? Do we protect the interests of our minorities against the "tyranny of the majority"? The California Supreme Court, like many courts before it and since, including the United States Supreme Court, has identified marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, indeed an unalienable civil right, in the words of the California Supreme Court. Once it determined that this was so, can a bare majority of the population of California take that right away from a significant minority population? Is it thus no longer an unalienable right? And if this is true for this minority, isn't it true for any minority, and any right, unalienable or not?
For the immediate purpose of the current Prop 8 debate, though, the question is whether that majority's effort represents an Amendment or a Revision. If this is not a revision, and thus, a failed attempt, I am not sure that anything can be a revision. As a practical matter, the California Supreme Court should invalidate the effort (Prop 8). It cannot be overturned by a federal court, it is expressly within its authority under the California Constitution to determine what is a Revision, and it will bring the silliness of willy-nilly constitutional initiatives under some control. Whether it will do so will (or technically, has done so), will be revealed in just over an hour.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
Media here in the Bay Area is expecting the Prop 8 decision at 10 a.m. today.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
6 to 1 The Supreme Court of California rejected the challenge to Prop 8 which means the gay marriage in California is illegal.
The 18,000 gay marriages that were performed between June 2008 and November 2008 are valid.
The struggle in California for equality continues...
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
My disappointment is significant. Looking for the decision, now. Cowards!
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
Hey! ...at least when I do find a boyfriend, I can marry in Massachusetts, or Iowa, or...
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
The next step is a voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage equality.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
Although I was politely asked to leave this discussion a couple of months ago, you may find the following interesting. Also unsettling for anyone advocating that government be in the marriage business.
“Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves”
There is a common misconception that a government marriage is a contract between the husband and wife. That assumption is not quite true. There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government’s rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime.
It is the price the couple pays in exchange for a bundle of exclusive subsidies and privileges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
The decision can be found at Court decision The dissent by justice Moreno makes better sense than the majority opinion: For reasons elaborated below, I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus “represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a ‘revision’ of the state Constitution rather than a mere ‘amendment’ thereof.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221 (Amador Valley).) The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent.1
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54 |
Well, my Californian friends - I think all I can say is I'm sorry it turned out this way...and never give up.
Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
After thinking about this decision for the past couple of hours, I've come to the conclusion that the Court voted the right way and here's why:
1. When Prop 22 was passed, it made a legislative law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The California Supreme Court stated in May 2008, that based on California's Constitution, Prop 22 was invalid and gays could marry because there was no language in the Constitution restricting what marriage is.
2. The CA Supreme stated that Prop 8 is a Constitutional admendment and therefore, marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what the People of California want; although the Court could have also labeled Prop 8 a revision to the Constitution, which, I think, is the true way Prop 8 should have been legally held as it took rights away.
- and -
The CA Supreme court correctly stated that the gay marriages between June 2008 and November 2008 are valid because at the time of those marriages, there was no Constitutional language in California barring such marriages.
Now. How does the California Franchise Tax Board reconcile their records allowing 18,000 gay couples married status on their tax return?
IF those 18,000 can file married, why can't another California couple marry in Iowa and file married status on their California Tax Return?
At any rate, this day is not over. Unfortunately, there are going to be legal challenges after legal challenges costing our State even more money that it does not have.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
