So gay!!!

[Hopper]

Kicky, and others, have argued that this was a very sound and clever legal ploy used by an activist judge to attempt to "bind" the supreme court to accept his opinion. It aint gunna work on that basis, and it aint "clever;" it's merely a transparent attempt to unfairly "stack the deck," if you ask me. Do these politically motivated people feel any need to put the slightest restraints involving honesty and decency on their attempts to forcibly implement their political agenda? Sometimes I wonder, ya know?

By the way, I have NEVER implied that I thought the "standing" issue was, or was gunna be, necessary to "save" prop 8. It's simply another question that gets raised when a "defendant" refuses to defend because he wants the same result as the plaintiff. The courts certainly don't need to rely on standing issues to dispose of attempts to overturn voter initiatives, as has been amply demonstrated in the Nebraska case, for one.

I also find it utterly hypocritical for the trial judge to contend that his ruling cannot be appealed by the only parties who made any attempt whatsover to present a case opposing his pre-established conclusions. Why did he even think he had a "controversy" before him if those parties don't even have standing (in his view) to appeal his decision?

As I said at the outset (an observation to which you have never responded) this view would seem to say that collusive suits where the defendant "defaults" to achieve an end desired by him, too, are totally beyond challenge. That would definitely be contradictory to the Supreme Court's holdings on the topic, wouldn't it?

 

[Archie Moses]

Watch out! Moe had a double post in this thread before anyone else posted, and she didn't quote anyone. What a troll, eh?

 

[Hopper]

As I've already pointed out, this wasn't what happened. The state didn't feel they could adequately defend the case so the let prop 8 proponents defend the case - a group that was adverse to the plaintiff.

I don't think that was the case here, and yourself suggest as much below. The state didn't say it "couldn't" defend, Scharzenegger said he didn't want to even TRY to defend, because he agreed with the plaintiffs' position as a personal/political matter. Not be able to do something, and refusing to do something, are entirely different things. Certainly the 1972 Supreme Court ruling and the Nebraska cases (ALONE) gave them PLENTY of legal ammuntion if they wanted to use it. They didn't.

First, in that case both parties agreed on all the facts, therefore there was no need to have a trial to determine facts.

I haven't looked at the case, but in Wiki it says they agreed that it was a question of law, not a question of fact. That is NOT a case where facts are in dispute, and agreement is therefore expected. In that case, in addition to the ACLU and the two homosexual organization who brought the suit, "Amicus briefs were filed opposing Initiative Measure 416 by, among others, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays," according to wiki. Apparently no one argued that the case needed to be remanded for factual findings. Did Judge Vaughn Walker "see it differently?" Apparently so. We'll see how valid the appellate courts think that idiosyncratic view is, I spoze.

Irregardless, it doesn't really matter, because Walker isn't bound by the 8th circuit. He didn't see any rational relationship (just as I don't) and he made his decision.

He was "bound" to consider the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision, on the merits, that a suit claiming that state discrimination against gay marriage violated the 14th amendment presented "no substantial federal question," wasn't he? According to the reports, he refused to even acknowledge the existence of that case, or any others incorporating rulings in opposition to his.

And as to the whole appeals thing, it would make no difference at all if the state had defended the case at trial or not. The state is the only party who can appeal (probably)... and if they don't want to appeal they don't have to. It wasn't some sort of collusion on the part of the judge to prevent an appeal, it is simply the fact that the state doesn't support an appeal and isn't required to.

Despite me having stated it several times, you still totally miss (or should I say "ignore"?) the point. No use trying further to get you to acknowledge the issue, I would guess.

Remember, it was voter's who put the marriage ban into the constitution, not state officials... state officials have never supported this law, and if they don't want to waste state resources defending what they don't believe in, then more power to them. If you don't like it then vote them out next election.

You act as though this is strictly a political issue, fully within the discretion of executive officials. It aint. But if it was, wouldn't that be just another reason why it is not "justiciable" by federal courts?

 

[Hopper]

My personal view of this case probably parallels the one expressed by the married homosexual analyst I quoted very early in this thread, i.e., that this is an extremely risky, and therefore probably ill-advised, attempt by a gay judge to cram his personal views down the whole country's throat. He appears to be anxious to force a "show-down" with the Supreme Court, and he is demanding a final JUDICIAL determination of the issue, right now. He may well get it. In the process, he may ruin all hopes of advancing his cause for generations to come.

For the time being, at least, he is being treated as a brilliant, courageous "saint" by the homosexual crew. For the time being he can bask in the shower of adulation he is getting from his homeys. But I wonder how he will be viewed if, after winning a very minor battle, he loses their "war" for them, eh?

Who knows, maybe he doesn't care a whit about the long-term future. Maybe he just wanted to make this ruling, and let it stand, however temporarily, after lifting his stay, so that he can "marry" his partner in the interim and get some personal benefits, eh?

 

[One Brow]

In theory I could "choose" about anything, Eric. Don't mean I'm gunna. But my whole point was that "choice" is irrelevant to begin with.

A bigshot pyschiatrist (Adler, mebbe, I don't recall, exactly) was once asked if there was any act or behavior so inherently immoral and disgusting that the average guy would refuse to do it.

He said, no, in my opinion there isn't, so long as one's peers approve of it. I see no reason why a "highly motivated" heterosexual couldn't go gay, just like gays can go straight.

Except gays don't go straight, not even in Spitzer's research. A minority of them change their orientation enough to make heterosexual sex more enjoyable, most can't even do that.

Still, at least you've admitted you have enhough homosexual tendencies you can see yourself going gay. I know that's a hard thing for a guy like you to admit, but it does explain why you over-interpret this reasearch.

But belt some gay guy who comes into a men's restroom and tries to "flirt" with you or "spy" on you, and you're gunna do at least a year in the pen for a "hate crime" if the gays have their way, ya know?

Why would you need to belt him, except as an over-reation to deny your own homosexual tendencies?

This isnt bigotry either. I dont care how un PC it is, sexual orientation IS a choice. It isnt race, ethnic heritage, or anything similar. It is a choice you decide for yourself.

I never chose to be straight.

Goat, do you pose these to me as serious questions? If so, you may be very lucky to pass the bar exam, I figure.

If you, as a bottom-feeder, undertake the duty to present a legal defense for an alleged criminal, would your only "defense" be to either:

1. Tell the court there is no need for a trial and that, since it is your personal belief that your client is guilty, he should be summarily convicted and sentenced, or else,

2. Lie to the court?

I think you can just say the prosecution has left room for reasonable doubt, without taking options 1) or 2).

Kicky, and others, have argued that this was a very sound and clever legal ploy used by an activist judge to attempt to "bind" the supreme court to accept his opinion. It aint gunna work on that basis, and it aint "clever;" it's merely a transparent attempt to unfairly "stack the deck," if you ask me. Do these politically motivated people feel any need to put the slightest restraints involving honesty and decency on their attempts to forcibly implement their political agenda? Sometimes I wonder, ya know?

What makes you think the judge is in any way politically motivated?

Who knows, maybe he doesn't care a whit about the long-term future. Maybe he just wanted to make this ruling, and let it stand, however temporarily, after lifting his stay, so that he can "marry" his partner in the interim and get some personal benefits, eh?

Maybe you're a three-horned sheep using the middle horn to type out these posts. I mean, if we're going to indulge in wile, random speculations, why not go all out?

 

[Hopper]

Still, at least you've admitted you have enhough homosexual tendencies you can see yourself going gay. I know that's a hard thing for a guy like you to admit, but it does explain why you over-interpret this reasearch... Why would you need to belt him, except as an over-reation to deny your own homosexual tendencies?

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? Why this talk of "tendencies" when it's all inalterably predetermined, I wonder? 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? Ya really got me there, sho nuff.

I think you can just say the prosecution has left room for reasonable doubt, without taking options 1) or 2).

Ya think!? Like, who knew, eh?

1. Scharzenegger's personal opinion on the topic is totally irrelevant and he could never properly be called as a witness for the purpose of stating his personal opinion to begin with. The whole suggestion is an absurd sophistry.

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

3. There are ethical issues here which transcend one's personal preferences. Again, any bottom-feeder who undertakes a duty to perform a task which he is unwillingly to diligently and zealously attempt to achieve is simply betraying the trust placed in him. Same goes for Governors who undertake a public trust, then piss all over it.

 

[Hopper]

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: https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

That case hardly says all that can, could be, or should be said on the topic, but it does raise virtually identical issues as the one we're talking about here. A few excerpts:

"Justice Scalia’s discussion of the anti-polygamy provisions in many state constitutions illustrates the chaos that would result if all enactments that allegedly deprive a group of “equal” political access must survive the rigors of strict judicial scrutiny. Romer, 517 U.S. at 648-51

If sexual orientation, like race, were a “suspect classification” for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, then Appellees’ focus on the political burden erected by a constitutional amendment would find support in cases like Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), and Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982). But the Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. The Court’s general standard is that rational-basis review applies...As we will explain, that is the case here, and therefore Appellees are not entitled to strict scrutiny review on this ground. Rational-basis review is highly deferential to the legislature or, in this case, to the electorate

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, and the causes for which it may be dissolved.” Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State’s justification “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”

The last sentence quoted here may be worth repeating: "Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State’s justification “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”

Courts are not the place to seek establish and entrench one's desired conclusions about a "political and sociological debate." Courts simply apply the law.

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.

 

[billyshelby]

You're citing Scalia, aint. We'll see how the Supreme Court rules if/when Prop 8 gets to their doorstep. Worst that happens is they kick it back to the states and it has to get voted in the old fashioned way. Other scenario is they do declare the issue to be 14th Amendment related and the Constitution gets interpreted in a way that offends you.

 

[Hopper]

You're citing Scalia, aint. We'll see how the Supreme Court rules if/when Prop 8 gets to their doorstep. Worst that happens is they kick it back to the states and it has to get voted in the old fashioned way. Other scenario is they do declare the issue to be 14th Amendment related and the Constitution gets interpreted in a way that offends you.

1. I'm citing a 3-judge appellate court's opinion, which is itself citing and summarizing numerous decisions made by the entire supreme court. No doubt, Biley, you with your utterly simplistic and sophistic approach, think the mere mention of the name "Scalia" automatically proves he is wrong and that your contrary view is therefore right. So typical, and so unworthy of a response, except perhaps, as I am doing, to note your fallacy-ridden M.O.

2. I don't think the gay lobby agrees with your "worst case" scenario at all. For them, the "worst case" is probably that they'll have to wait a few months after a Supreme Court decision before bringing their next case, at great tax-payer expense, raising the exact same issue again. And then again, a few months after they lose that case. And then again, before they file their next suit. And then again, ad infinitum.

 

[billyshelby]

Gimme a break, aint. You make it sound like the Constitution can only be interpreted one way. Yet in countless decisions, judges don't agree on either side of the aisle. Citing an opinion of Scalia, or any of the conservative justices, is a layup for you, because he'll never not agree with your ideology. Meanwhile, there's already been several gay rights cases that directly related to state constitutions which the Supreme Court somehow found a way to rule unconstitutional on some ground. I don't pretend to know that Prop 8 directly corresponds to those decisions. But I'm guessing they're not all going to look at each other like it's some kind of slam dunk of Constitutional Law and rule within minutes when they get it.

 

[Stifle Tower]

All I know is this issue is going to bring one side or the other to their knees;-)

 

[Hopper]

Here is an excerpt from that same decision which I quote for the benefit of Eric, as it pertains to our discussion of the relevancy of "pragmatic concerns:"

"This is not to say that courts should refuse to recognize a constitutional right merely because to do so would make them unpopular. Constitutional rights are, after all, rights against the democratic majority. But public opinion is not irrelevant to the task of deciding whether a constitutional right exists. . . . If it is truly a new right, as a right to same-sex marriage would be . . . . [judges] will have to go beyond the technical legal materials of decision and consider moral, political, empirical, prudential, and institutional issues, including the public acceptability of a decision recognizing the new right."

That, by the way, is not a quote of the appellate court itself. They are themselves quoting from a Michigan Law Review article written by Richard Posner. According to wiki:

"Richard Allen Posner (born January 11, 1939) is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School...Posner is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and several other topics, including The Problems of Jurisprudence; Sex and Reason; Overcoming Law; Law, Pragmatism and Democracy; and The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. The Journal of Legal Studies has identified Posner as the most cited legal scholar of all time, and a 1999 New York Times article identified Posner as one of the most respected judges in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

 

[billyshelby]

"Justice Scalia’s discussion of the anti-polygamy provisions in many state constitutions illustrates the chaos that would result if all enactments that allegedly deprive a group of “equal” political access must survive the rigors of strict judicial scrutiny. Romer, 517 U.S. at 648-51

Feel free to pontificate, as I'm sure you will, but isn't this Scalia's dissenting opinion in a decision that went against him? In other words, it's Scalia's opinion, and I'm sure a few others on the bench, that the Supreme Court should not be involved in something perceived as 'political' or 'sociological.' But 6 other justices on that case apparently felt it went beyond those concerns, or don't even agree with Scalia's general thesis. So you're presenting Scalia's ideas as if they ARE the law, when in fact they're only his interpretation of it, and that interpretation was apparently struck down in this instance.

 

[Hopper]

In other words...

Probably best not to try to summarize and characterize things you don't, and don't even want to, understand, eh, Biley?

 

[billyshelby]

Probably best not to try to summarize and characterize things you don't, and don't even want to, understand, eh, Biley?

I'm not pretending to understand all the intricacies of law. That's why the first sentence of my post is framed as a question. You're citing Romer, which I assume is Romer vs Evans. A blurb I found says this:

"In 1996, the Supreme Court again considered gay rights issues in Romer v Evans, a challenge to a provision in the Colorado Constitution (adopted by a 54% to 46% vote) that prohibited the state or its subdivisions from adopting any laws that gave preferred or protected status to homosexuals. (The provision, Amendment 2, effectively repealed anti-discrimination laws in Boulder, Aspen, and Denver.) By a 6 to 3 vote, the Court found the Colorado provision to lack a rational basis, and therefore to violate the equal protection rights of homosexuals. Justice Kennedy's opinion concluded Amendment 2 was "born of animosity" toward gays. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, accused the Court of "taking sides in the culture wars." After Romer, speculation about the future of Bowers became widespread, with people such as Laurence Tribe predicting that Bowers "is not long for this world."

https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm

YOU said: "Courts are not the place to seek establish and entrench one's desired conclusions about a "political and sociological debate." Courts simply apply the law."

Well, it LOOKS like 6 other Supreme Court Justices don't agree with Scalia's opinion that Romer was meddling with 'culture' inappropriately. So either your statement was your opinion (like Scalia's), or as a stated fact it seems to have been disputed in alternate interpretations of 'applying the law.'

 

[Hopper]

You're citing Romer, which I assume is Romer vs Evans.

I'm not citing anybody. The appellate court in this case cited Romer and went to great lengths to explain how the case before it was different from Romer.

Well, it LOOKS like 6 other Supreme Court Justices don't agree with Scalia's opinion ...

In the context that you made your claim, especially, this is a completely unwarranted conclusion (it is unwarranted in any event, but ESPECIALLY in that context). There is no indication whatsoever that, with respect to the issue this (Bruning) court quoted him about, any justice disagreed with him. I would be quite willing to bet a large sum that, with respect to that issue, NO justice, then or now, disagreed with him.

You obviously don't read carefully, and just jump to a conclusion that you've already reached before you read a word. In the course of his dissenting opinion he "illustrates the chaos that would result if all enactments that allegedly deprive a group of “equal” political access must survive the rigors of strict judicial scrutiny. Romer, 517 U.S. at 648-51." The issue before the court in Romer was NOT whether "all enactments that allegedly deprive a group of “equal” political access must survive the rigors of strict judicial scrutiny." No justice would agree that all should, but that wasn't the issue in the case. Hence it was not the opinion they may have disagreed with. Scalia didn't think the "strict scrutiny" test should be applied in THAT case, nor, apparently, did the majority, since they refused to apply the "strict scrutiny" standard in Romer and instead applied the "rational relation" standard. Without doubt, all agreed that the strict scrutiny standard should NOT be universally applied.

To repeat: Scalia was, in essence, arguing that the "rigors of strict judicial scrutiny" should not be routinely required. As I said, I am quite positive that EVERY supreme court justice agrees with that conclusion and understands the efficacy of his "analysis" of the factors justifying that statement, as did the Bruning court.

 

[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."