So gay!!!

[Beantown]

Obviously, but why civil unions only? What would the downside of some bone smugglers being able to wed just like every other human being who resides in what is supposedly the greatest country on Earth?

I believe it is more important to respect the biological importance of the heterosexual relation and reproductive process. I believe its socially irresponsible to claim these relationships as equals when they clearly were not meant to be by nature. Especially in a world that already disrespect the reprodcutive process.

 

[Hopper]

Factual testimony was the bulk of the hearing and that's what can't be challenged.

According to the judge's opinion in this case: "California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings." So this is like a case where the defendants "collude" with the plaintiffs to achieve a judicial ruling which both sides want.

According to Wiki: "The Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_(law)

When one side makes no attempt whatsoever to contest the alleged facts, this appears to be yet another reason for an appellate court to refrain from deferring to the "facts" as found by the trial court. An argument could seemingly be made that there was no "actual controversy" or "actual dispute between adverse parties," and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction to enter a ruling in the first place.

Addendum: Looking into this issue a little further, I find this:

"The most famous case setting forth the parameters of this requirement is Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), in which the Court held that when Congress paid the legal bills for both the plaintiffs and the defendant (in this case the U.S. Treasury department, by designation), then there was no real controversy between the parties, and a judgment of the Court would be the equivalent of an advisory opinion."

LINK

 

[KatieMCR]

Good god I have tried to stay away from this thread, but Beantown posts some of the most offensive BS I have ever seen. So people are only gay because they were molested or they have a "disorder"? seriously??!!! I don't even need to ask about your theory on people like myself. I'm sure it's the same as your bogus theory on homosexuality. For the record I can tell you without a doubt that I have never been molested. I also do not feel I have a disorder. It is so blatantly offensive for you to make these remarks. Homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it a disorder. Of course there is really no point in me trying to argue this with you, as has already been proven multiple times in this thread by many others.

To make matters worse, you go and resort to the bogus slippery slope argument? Marry your dog? Really?? What part of consenting ADULTS do you not understand?

 

[The Savior]

I believe it is more important to respect the biological importance of the heterosexual relation and reproductive process. I believe its socially irresponsible to claim these relationships as equals when they clearly were not meant to be by nature. Especially in a world that already disrespect the reprodcutive process.

Right, you should to apply the rules of the animal kingdom to any social progress of mankind. If you don't, you are DISRESPECTING the animal kingdom. These people have no idea what evolution would do to them if they disrespect it. Do deer allow gay deer to marry? No, so we shouldn't either.

Beantown and I also think that people who can't procreate or are frail should not be allowed to vote. Evolution made those people weaker, and thus, not as human as others. They are maybe 3/4ths of a human AT BEST.

So by respecting evolution, you make evolution happy and therefore reap the benefits of evolution's kindness. But if you throw a cold shoulder to evolution, evolution will become unhappy and retaliate. Biology will kill your family. That's what Beantown and I are afraid of.

 

[The Savior]

Anyway, Beantown, you know that I will give you eternal life at my feet in the Celestial Kingdom if you continue to copy/paste your stance without considering other people's points of view whatsoever. That's what I want. I don't WANT you to really think about this issue, I want you to go into it with a mindset and never try to change. Just keep copy/pasting. My reasoning is that if you're going to be my footstool, you might as well be as boring and as closed-minded as one.

 

[Hopper]

The hurdle for the government was extremely low, they basically just had to not lose. They still lost.

It sounds like they didn't defend.

Because courts generally don't issue advisory opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion#United_States

Well, there ya go then, eh?

Also overlooked in all this legal instruction we've been receiving from Kicky is the fact that the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, even after it had struck down an identically-worded statute for being "unconstitutional."

"These protests led to several lawsuits being filed in the State Supreme Court and the Federal District Court. On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, which consolidated into Strauss v. Horton....the Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

As far as I know, the California Supreme Court has and had full authority to strike down prop 8 on the the grounds that it violated the U.S. Constitution, even if it didn't violate the California constitution.

I guess if ya can't git what ya want from a full panel of Supreme Court Justices in Sacramento, ya can always try gittin it from one gay judge in San Francisco, eh?

 

[moevillini]

....Beantown and I also think that people who can't procreate or are frail should not be allowed to vote. Evolution made those people weaker, and thus, not as human as others. They are maybe 3/4ths of a human AT BEST....

Can you provide a link or any evidence that this is what Beantown thinks? If not, then you really should not be speaking (or writing) for him, or other posters.

 

[sirkickyass]

So this is like a case where the defendants "collude" with the plaintiffs to achieve a judicial ruling which both sides want.

Others put on a case on behalf of the defense side through the defendant-intervention procedure, making it distinguishable from Muskrat. Two experts testifed on behalf of the defense side even though the state chose not to participate.

Muskrat also operated in the other direction: one side paid both sides legal fees so that the defense could test its own legislation, rather than the state simply choosing not to participate in the defense. The Muskrat situation is obviously more collusive because the defense "staged" the action. The state didn't compel anyone to sue in this instance so that it could decline to defend.

In this instance there is also no single party paying for both sides bills, so it's unlikely Muskrat will apply.

There is obviously an actual case or controversy here aint. The plaintiffs are independent from those on the other side of the action, and have suffered a judicially cognizable harm that is 1) concrete and particularized and 2) actual or imminent.

It also doesn't make sense on the prudential level to bounce the case on standing issues because none of the reasons the standing requirement exists were violated in the litigation.

Even if you were correct, the defendants in this action didn't litigate standing at the trial level so they have waived it as a defense for appellate purposes.

You're also conflating the constitutional requirement of standing with the respective functions of trial and appellate courts. The issues are unrelated because one is a jurisdictional issue and the other goes to the type of review the court is empowered to make. The most that could happen on the factual side is that the court could find a procedural defect in how the factual portion of the bench trial proceeded and order a new trial. As is, they will likely have to engage in a significant number of gymnastics to try to come up with a legal opinion that is consistent with the factual findings or will come up with a way to frame a legal conclusion as a factual conclusion.

But congrats aint, you've managed to make it through the equivalent of half a class in a Fed Courts class. I'm sure are now convinced you're an expert ready to actually discuss the issues as is your general practice. Despite the fact that I've given you several reasons why your argument is surely wrong in this instance I'm sure you will answer one and then become convinced that you have won the debate.

 

[sirkickyass]

Also overlooked in all this legal instruction we've been receiving from Kicky is the fact that the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, even after it had struck down an identically-worded statute for being "unconstitutional."

The identically worded statute was invalidated based on provisions of the California Constitution. Prop 8 amended the state constitution, undercutting the rationale behind the decision. Prop 8 was introduced as a Constitutional amendment specifically so that it woudl reverse the previous ruling.

In particular, the court determined that the voters had effectively voted to create an exception to the state's equal protection clause on the specific subject of homosexual marriage, which is why they upheld that homosexuals still constituted a protected class for purposes of the state constitution.

As far as I know, the California Supreme Court has and had full authority to strike down prop 8 on the the grounds that it violated the U.S. Constitution, even if it didn't violate the California constitution.

This is true, but misses some of the complexity of the situation. Judges are sensitive about being overruled and a state supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of its own constitution. They are virtually unoverturnable on the meaning of their own constitution. They are very overturnable by federal courts on the meaning of the federal constitution. Cabining the decision to the meaning of its own state constitution when the controversy was assuredly going to the Supreme Court anyway is hardly surprising given that context. Everyone knew this was going to federal court regardless of which side won.

Two questions:

1. Have you actually read the opinion?

2. Have you thought about what I'm telling you at all in light of how the opinion is actually textually structured (i.e. page 54-108 are titled "Findings of Fact" while pages 109-134 are titled "Conclusions of Law")?

 

[Hopper]

I've given you several reasons why your argument is surely wrong in this instance.

Kicky:

1. I said an argument could be made, I didn't try to give a conclusive, irrebutable resolution of that argument, as you have. Maybe you should apply for a Justice position on the U.S. Supreme Court, eh?

2. Wiki says that a court does not have jurisdiction to decide a case where there is no actual controversy. You say: "Even if you were correct, the defendants in this action didn't litigate standing at the trial level so they have waived it as a defense for appellate purposes." I don't believe questions of lack of jurisdiction can ever be "waived" however. Any such rulin is void ab initio, aint it?

3. You say: "Two experts testifed on behalf of the defense side even though the state chose not to participate." Experts in what? Did they offer opinion testimony, or "factual" testimony?

4. Do you care to respond to other comments I have made about your unqualified claims that "factual" findings cannot be challenged on appeal?

 

[Scat]

This is just a short summary of a study performed in Denmark regarding the causes of homosexuality. Nothing conclusive but interesting.

Homosexuality Influenced by Childhood Family Situation
Linda Ames Nicolosi

A major study is about to be published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, which provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development.

The study used a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49. Denmark - a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships, and the first country to legalize gay marriage.

With access to the "virtually complete registry coverage of the entire Danish population," the study sample therefore lacked the problematic selection bias that has plagued many previous studies on sexual orientation.

Parental Influences on Sexual Orientation Development

The authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Assuming that people who marry heterosexually are almost always heterosexual - especially in a country where homosexuality carries little stigma, and gay marriage is legal - and people who marry homosexually can be presumed to be homosexual, the study's findings offer intriguing evidence about family factors separating homosexual from heterosexual persons.

The following are findings from this new data:

-Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships - particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

-Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."

-Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

-Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."

-"The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."

-"Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."

-"Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."

-The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men - the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual.

-Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner - suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

"Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices," conclude the study's authors, "our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important."

("Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes," by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006; [E-publication ahead of print])

For what it's worth...

 

[Hopper]

In particular, the court determined that the voters had effectively voted to create an exception to the state's equal protection clause on the specific subject of homosexual marriage.

Yeah, the issue has been raised about whether this is really a political issue or a legal one. Mixed in have been a bunch of opinions about what is "right." To quote the California Supreme Court in an excerpt from the opinion in the Strauss case:

"[O]ur task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

Two questions:

1. Have you actually read the opinion?

2. Have you thought about what I'm telling you at all in light of how the opinion is actually textually structured (i.e. page 54-108 are titled "Findings of Fact" while pages 109-134 are titled "Conclusions of Law")?

No, I haven't, and I have no current intention of readin 136 pages about this.