So gay!!!

[One Brow]

Heh, I was wondrin when you'd get around to the old-standby "Anyone who don't love homos is a damn homo" argument, eh, Eric?

Actually, I don't believe that argument. One of the links in this thread discussed it as a probability, but it's hardly a concrete correlation. I did believe you when you said you could see yourself going homosexual.

Why this talk of "tendencies" when it's all inalterably predetermined, I wonder?

For one, you can be an inalterably predetermined bisexual who is attracted to, say, 50% of the women and 5% of the men he sees. That would mean you would have a tendency toward women, even though it was inalterably predetermined. For another, it's been quite a long time since I have claim that *every* person is inalterably predertermined.

Why would I coldcock some guy who broke into my crib, unless I was just tryin to disguise the fact that I, too, was a cheap-*** burgler?

A public restroom is not your crib.

1. Scharzenegger's personal opinion ...

is not a fair comparison to a defense attorney in a criminal trial.

2. In a civil case, it's not even a question of having to eliminate "reasonable doubt."

My understanding is "based on the preponderence of the evidence", or some such.

Same goes for Governors who undertake a public trust, then piss all over it.

Perhaps Schwartzenegger feels that higher duty to the US Constitution subverts the duty to the California Constitution.

The Supreme Court long ago declared, and recently reaffirmed, that a State “has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created,

If a state can not forbid interracial marriage, then the right of the state is absolute.

Laymen with an agenda frequently assert, as though it were indisputable fact, that the prohibition of gay marriage "violates the equal protection clause of the U.S constitution." Unfortunately for them, and the "authority" they pretend to assert, the courts have never agreed with that interpretation of what the equal protection clause requires.

This would not be the first time the courts have recognized such rights after a delay, or even reversed previous rulings on these rights.

If it is truly a new right, as a right to same-sex marriage would be . . .

The court may disagree that same-sex marriage is a new right.

 

[Hopper]

I did believe you when you said you could see yourself going homosexual.

Heh, if you believed it "when I said it," perhaps you could show where I said that, ya know?

 

[TroutBum]

Heh, if you believed it "when I said it," perhaps you could show where I said that, ya know?

*points to signature*

 

[Hopper]

Perhaps Schwartzenegger feels that higher duty to the US Constitution subverts the duty to the California Constitution.

Maybe, who knows? Maybe he feels like his duty to his pet snake is also a higher duty. That aint the question, though. The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of prop 8. Schwartzenegger took a solemn oath to uphold and defend THAT constitution. He did not swear to uphold the U.S. constitutuion, as such.

The day after the California Supreme Court ruling the suit naming him as a defendant was filed in San Francisco. He refused to "defend." If you think such pleadings are reseached, composed, edited, rewritten, and ready for filing in court overnight, then you are mistaken. This was obviously part of a well-prepared "contingency plan."

 

[Hopper]

This would not be the first time the courts have recognized such rights after a delay, or even reversed previous rulings on these rights.

Yeah, Eric, there's always the possibility that this Supreme Court will reverse it's prior rulings. It's rare, but it happens. On the whole the Court strives to follow it's own precedents, in the interest of stability, consistency, and predictability if for no other reasons. But, that aside, Supreme Court decisions are generally well-thought out and contain reasoning and wisdom worth following and adhering to.


I've yet to see any expert commentators (not that I've looked for many) that expresses much optimism that this Walker ruling will be upheld on appeal. I actually think the high-handed and unorthodox way in which this decision was reached will create some negative backlash in the appellate courts and perhaps cause it to be received with prejudice.

I don't think the fact that Walker failed to even discuss prior Supreme Court decisions on the gay marriage issue and attempted to forcibly (as the initial trier of fact) convert opinion to "fact" will endear him to appellate judges or give them the impression that Walker's opinion was well-considered or impartially arrived at. I could easily be wrong, of course. I guess we'll see.

Edit: I see now that s soon as he lifted his stay, the appellate court immediately reinstated a 1 year stay. "The appeals court granted an emergency motion for a stay made last week by the initiative's sponsors. The court's order halted preparations under way in some counties to marry same-sex couples starting at 5 p.m. Wednesday, which Walker had set as the launch time for enforcement of his ruling."
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/16/MNEE1EUOIF.DTL#ixzz0wqVOTuls

 

[Hopper]

Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese (obviously a conservative) said this in the Washington Post:

"Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its result. By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings...

...according to the federal district court, Americans such as President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the majority of members of Congress and the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 are all bigots who have "no rational reason" to oppose gay marriage....These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record. No appellate court should allow the ruling to stand. The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker's decision delivered."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d.../08/16/AR2010081604254.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

=====

Other side of the aisle (from the author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."):

"...gay men and women across the country are celebrating unreservedly. I only wish I could join them...as a gay man, a leading proponent of gay marriage and half of a same-sex marriage myself (my partner and I got married in the District of Columbia in June), I find so much to celebrate. How could I not?

I agree with Walker that gay marriage is unlikely to cause any significant social harm and will do much good. But the judge insists that the testimony of a handful of expert witnesses in his courtroom rules out the possibility of harm so definitively as to make any attempt at caution or gradualism irrational. The evidence, he holds, is "beyond debate." In an unpredictable world, that kind of sweeping certainty would leave any Burkean gulping.

So I think the decision is a radical one...in his use of the Constitution to batter the principles of its two greatest exponents - Madison and Abraham Lincoln, a Burkean who was steadfast in his belief that ideals must be leavened with pragmatism.


History will, I believe, vindicate Walker's view of marriage. Whether it will see him as having done gay rights a favor is less clear. For all its morally admirable qualities, his decision sets the cause of marriage equality crosswise with moderation, gradualism and popular sovereignty."

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion...rriage_challenges_p.html?page=0#ixzz0wqq23KKw

=====

Robert Nagel, a U. of Colorado constitutional law professor, whose view may or may not be typical, found nothing to praise about Walker's "coup:"

"The good judge took pains to present himself as a workmanlike lawyer rather than a recklessly arrogant philosopher king. His opinion is designed so that it appears merely to apply legal propositions laid down by the Supreme Court and to evaluate factual evidence meticulously...Here is how it works: Where there are undeniably reasons (debatable reasons, to be sure) behind the traditional definition of marriage, Judge Walker simply announces that those reasons are illegitimate and therefore don’t count. And where the reasons are undeniably legitimate, Judge Walker dismisses them on the basis of sweeping factual claims that he cannot possibly support.

Despite all its cerebral and legalistic trappings, Judge Walker’s opinion is not an exercise in some detached and impartial form of rationality. Like the law it invalidated, his opinion is a reflection of aspirations, fears, guesses, and moral judgments. ....What is at least as frightening as the unruly world of politics is the supercilious and resolutely self-satisfied world occupied by judges like Vaughn Walker."

https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/judge-voters-drop-dead?page=1

 

[moevillini]

To a certain degree, this whole business of citing any particular legal scholar(s) and/or decision(s) to support or refute your argument seems a bit pointless, particularly when it gets to the degree of nit-picky ridiculousness that's evident here. That there is going to be disagreement is a given - even among the best and the brightest. Otherwise all court decisions would be unanimous, and there would be no need for an appeals process whatsoever because there'd be no reason to disagree with a ruling. (except in cases where there's new evidence, or some form of mistrial occurred)

I'd be curious to know who, other than Hopper, finds this type of discussion worthwhile.

/rant

 

[Gameface]

To a certain degree, this whole business of citing any particular legal scholar(s) and/or decision(s) to support or refute your argument seems a bit pointless, particularly when it gets to the degree of nit-picky ridiculousness that's evident here. That there is going to be disagreement is a given - even among the best and the brightest. Otherwise all court decisions would be unanimous, and there would be no need for an appeals process whatsoever because there'd be no reason to disagree with a ruling. (except in cases where there's new evidence, or some form of mistrial occurred)

I'd be curious to know who, other than Hopper, finds this type of discussion worthwhile.

/rant

Me too!

 

[Hopper]

Mo, like I done said:

I doubt that many who have contributed to this thread actually give a rat's *** about the law or the legal standards to be applied in a case like this. It seems that most merely want to state their personal view or their preferred outcome, and then say THAT should be the law. But anyone who actually wants a better understanding of how the law applies in such cases could take a look at the Bruning case here:

There a number of political and social issues underlying this case, such as separation of powers, minority rights, etc., but that doesn't mean anyone is this forum is interested in discussing them, I realize that. My sense is that very few are, at least not at any serious level. Most people just want to put in a "hooray" or a "boo" and leave it at that.

I really didn't quote any of these guys to support or refute an argument so much as to see if anyone thought the type of thoughts they are expressing stimulated any discussion.

 

[One Brow]

In theory I could "choose" about anything, Eric. Don't mean I'm gunna.

Heh, if you believed it "when I said it," perhaps you could show where I said that, ya know?

Happy to oblige.

Maybe, who knows? Maybe he feels like his duty to his pet snake is also a higher duty. That aint the question, though. The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of prop 8. Schwartzenegger took a solemn oath to uphold and defend THAT constitution. He did not swear to uphold the U.S. constitutuion, as such.

When California joined the USA, it agreed that its constitution and laws would be of lesser status that federal laws and the US Constitution. I am fairly sure California did not agree to such provisions regarding the governors pets. So, when the governer sees a state provision that he believes contradicts a federal provision, it's his duty to follow the federal provision.

The day after the California Supreme Court ruling the suit naming him as a defendant was filed in San Francisco. He refused to "defend." If you think such pleadings are reseached, composed, edited, rewritten, and ready for filing in court overnight, then you are mistaken. This was obviously part of a well-prepared "contingency plan."

I'm sure.

Yeah, Eric, there's always the possibility that this Supreme Court will reverse it's prior rulings. It's rare, but it happens. On the whole the Court strives to follow it's own precedents, in the interest of stability, consistency, and predictability if for no other reasons. But, that aside, Supreme Court decisions are generally well-thought out and contain reasoning and wisdom worth following and adhering to.

Agreed.

I've yet to see any expert commentators (not that I've looked for many) that expresses much optimism that this Walker ruling will be upheld on appeal. I actually think the high-handed and unorthodox way in which this decision was reached will create some negative backlash in the appellate courts and perhaps cause it to be received with prejudice.

One thing that both Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virgina had was that the lower courts followed prior Supreme Court precedents, true.

On the other hand, Perez vs. Sharp went completely against these precedents, was was not overturned. The Supreme Court might simply not hear this case.

Finally, one additonal quote from Loving vs. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Apparently, the Supreme Court of New York does not feel this applies to same-sex marriage, and Walker does.

Twenty years from now, gay marriage in the USA will be a fact of life. It's just a question of when and by what path.

 

[Hopper]

For example, one of these articles raises the question: Does morality have any place whatsoever in law? Many argue that virtually all laws are based on a moral judgment. Judge Vaughn basically says that "morality" is not a valid concern, and seems to equate "morality" with religion. The atheists I talk to routinely assure me that they have moral values. So is all morality simply a result of religious indoctrination, or not?

"Consider the argument that homosexual conduct is immoral...To the extent that these reasons are religious, Judge Walker rejects them on the ground that it is impermissible to base public policy on religious ideas...Judge Walker discards all the secular moral arguments on the basis of a puzzling assertion, repeatedly made in the opinion, that moral disapproval is “not enough” to justify a public policy."

 

[One Brow]

I really didn't quote any of these guys to support or refute an argument so much as to see if anyone thought the type of thoughts they are expressing stimulated any discussion.

It may indeed be too much, too soon, as the middle essay indicates. If Meese is claiming that there was substantial evidence and plain common sense that Walker ignored, I would be interested in the specific details of that, if Meese can provide any. As for Nagel, his quote read more like character assassination than a review of the decision itself.