Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Cynical Idealist » Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:58 pm UTC

Source

It sounds like he wants to have the proposition overturned by the courts, which I have some mixed feelings about. On the one hand, I support equal rights for everyone, but having a court overturn something the people voted in seems like its overreaching. The time to block the proposition would have been *before* it could be voted on, so as to not overturn the will of the people.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby ++$_ » Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:07 pm UTC

This isn't about the will of the people. In parts of the country, the will of the people was that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The will of the people isn't the most important thing in the world.

The reason a court overturning the proposition might be a bad idea is that it will not eliminate the bigotry that the passing of the proposition represents. Remember, civil rights for African-Americans was only achieved through an intense struggle; court decisions weren't sufficient, though they were necessary.

I think that the proper ruling for the court to make is that, since the constitution guarantees equal protection, either everyone can be allowed to marry, or no one can. Right now, the people have voted that some people are not allowed to marry; this means that no one can. That would solve the problem in my opinion, since the state shouldn't be recognizing marriages anyway.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby psyck0 » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:01 pm UTC

For a republican, Arnold ain't half bad. Sometimes I really don't understand why he even is one.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby william » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:For a republican, Arnold ain't half bad. Sometimes I really don't understand why he even is one.

If I remember correctly he's a lot more conservative on economic issues.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
Xaldibik
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:45 pm UTC
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Xaldibik » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:20 pm UTC

Speaking as a bi male, I'm not quite sure I like the sound of this. Despite me not liking Prop 8, it still got majority vote, and the court idly overturning it doesn't seem right. Now, if they were to define a reason for doing this, like lies told about the reasons behind the bill(Such as the church which said that if Prop 8 didn't pass, gay marriage would be taught to kindergarteners(source)), then I would be all for the override, and I would be all for a revote down the road.

Also, kind of contrasting to my point, it leads back to a quote my brothers English teacher said once, "That's the problem with democracy; 51 people can decide to kill 49."

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby clintonius » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:30 pm UTC

The fact that people were misled into voting for the bill doesn't make it any less valid -- misinformation is rampant in every election. I don't like it, but a court would need solid evidence demonstrating that an outcome-altering number of people would have voted the other way in the absence of that misinformation, and I'm not sure that can be proved.

As I understand it, currently the strongest legal argument against prop 8 is that it shouldn't have been on the ballot at all. Opponents claim that, because it overrules the equal protection clause of the California Supreme Court, it is considered a "fundamental change" rather than an amendment. Fundamental changes must be enacted by state legislation and are never up for popular vote.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Woxor » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:51 pm UTC

There is absolutely nothing wrong with courts overturning a majority vote by the people. The law is not intended to be interpreted by a popular majority.

We are a democracy, of course: there are ways that the populace can change the law, but if it wants to contradict existing principles within national law, a simple majority on a referendum is not sufficient. So if the court rules that the majority is violating even one person's rights, then the judiciary isn't overstepping its bounds.

Kazuke
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:55 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kazuke » Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:31 pm UTC

If this is true then my respect for him just went up a bit.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kachi » Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:54 pm UTC

If I remember correctly he's a lot more conservative on economic issues.


He is very fiscally conservative, and although I don't really agree with him on that, his position is at least well thought-out. He's also eager to support Obama as president, which I can appreciate. Course, I can deal with fiscal conservatives even if I disagree with them. It's the social conservatives that make me want to stick a screwdriver in their kidneys.

Anyway, topic at hand-- I really think they should throw it out. The people should not get a popular vote on taking away people's rights. If rights are to be taken away, they need to do so based on a legislative body's in depth consideration for the repercussions that possessing those rights has for the common good. I approve of this about the same as I approve of taking away Asians' right to drive a car based on popular vote.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:49 am UTC

Kachi wrote:I approve of this about the same as I approve of taking away Asians' right to drive a car based on popular vote.


When we did we suddenly switch gears here?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kachi » Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:52 am UTC

Maybe if Asians were better at switching gears we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

Ba dum *pish*.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:56 am UTC

Sigh.

You say that as if I had no clue what I was saying.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby clintonius » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:06 am UTC

*this thread amended to insert the following comment immediately below Nougat's first post*

I dunno, but this discussion had better get back on track. I feel like we're in the fast lane to locksville if we don't wheel this thing around.

So. . . Prop 8 better hit the road.

Also, Kachi, you are bad and you should feel bad.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kachi » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:07 am UTC

I'm sorry :cry: I'm slower than an Asian driver.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:09 am UTC

I'm not really sure if this is the right place for this rant, but Arnold fiscally conservative? There has been projections of budget deficits for years, and he hasn't done shit about it. Last time there was a big deficit, his solution was to pass a bunch of bond measures while simultaneously passing a bond that prohibited similar future debt of the government, something he has largely ignored. Spending has run rampant over the past 4 years (spendings gone up around 40% in the past couple of years, GDP has gone up around 20%), ignoring the warnings and projected deficits by flippantly writing them by literaly saying "I'm an optimist." Well, great job goverrnor, now how the fuck is your optimism going to help get rid of an ever-growing deficit because our government is over extended while the tax base is shrinking?

As to the Amendment, while it would be ideal to throw it out but California has this god-awful democracy-instead-of-republic complex that has lead to many problems, this not being the first (like the $35 billion in construction spending mandated last year, or the $20 billion in bonds authorized this year despite our deficict being so large that we had to resort to the federal government for a loan out of fear the private sector wouldn't give us enough). If you're looking to erase voter stupidity, this is hardly the place to start... also, perhaps I'm missing something but on what legal grounds could the government throw out an amendent? The federal courts could in theory do that, but it's not running in violation to federal law, and even though there might be seeming contradiction between parts of a constitution certain parts of a constitution serve to elaborate on other parts, in this case that the State of California does not regard same-sex marriage as a guaranteed matter of civil rights. At this point, we'd just be best off waiting a couple of years and passing an amendment that repeals this and says the right to marriage shall not be abridged on account of gender. Hell, we might even be able to do it next year if we can just get Gavin Newsom to shut the hell up...

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:05 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:also, perhaps I'm missing something but on what legal grounds could the government throw out an amendent?
This has been discussed.

Our state legislature ruled earlier that the constitution, as written, guaranteed gay marriage under a clause on gender equality. The amendment proposed by Prop 8 is in direct contradiction with that clause as interpreted. The California constitution (according to those who support court review of prop 8) doesn't provide for this sort of revision by means of popular vote. Therefore, since popular vote is not sufficient to pass it, the fact that it was approved by popular vote is not sufficient for its addition to the California constitution.

Deciheximal
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:58 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Deciheximal » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:26 am UTC

Arnold used his veto pen to stop gay marriage when the state congress tried to legalize it. Twice.
I like digraphs. Hey look, there's a digraph in digraph!

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Xeio » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:33 am UTC

Deciheximal wrote:Arnold used his veto pen to stop gay marriage when the state congress tried to legalize it. Twice.
Well, contradictory or not, at least this is a step in the right direction.

The only real question here is how long it will be till the supreme court and federal law is put into place that protects gay marriage (and allows the same rights under law as heterosexual marriage), mandating it for all states.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Intercept » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:39 am UTC

Deciheximal wrote:Arnold used his veto pen to stop gay marriage when the state congress tried to legalize it. Twice.


Yeah, this seems like an odd move.

But anyway, I've heard one of the main reasons to overthrow this is that this is technically a revision which need a 3/4th vote.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kachi » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:41 am UTC

I'm not really sure if this is the right place for this rant, but Arnold fiscally conservative?


Don't you know? Republicans are defined by their platform. They are rarely fiscally conservative when elected.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:12 am UTC

Intercept wrote:
Deciheximal wrote:Arnold used his veto pen to stop gay marriage when the state congress tried to legalize it. Twice.


Yeah, this seems like an odd move.

But anyway, I've heard one of the main reasons to overthrow this is that this is technically a revision which need a 3/4th vote.


Placing the heat on the courts, so that they're the ones called names like "activist judges", was more appealing than suffering the end of his career in the Republican party.

Anyways, it's good that conscience is biting on him for his previous cowardice, and now he wants to say to Prop. 8 "Hasta la vista, baby."
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:23 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:Our state legislature ruled earlier that the constitution, as written, guaranteed gay marriage under a clause on gender equality. The amendment proposed by Prop 8 is in direct contradiction with that clause as interpreted. The California constitution (according to those who support court review of prop 8) doesn't provide for this sort of revision by means of popular vote. Therefore, since popular vote is not sufficient to pass it, the fact that it was approved by popular vote is not sufficient for its addition to the California constitution.

The same court that originally allowed gay marriages has already dismissed this argument. Unless I'm mistaken, the revision rules only apply to the constitution and as the consitution stands without the amendment there is no formal definition or discussion of marriage. The constitution was extrapolated to say that a law could not be made that specifically denied marriage rights to gay couples, but the anti gay marriage amendment does not actively revise the constitution. Laws exist within the state that deal with marriage, but they were not constitutionally dealt with until now. Laws are subject to interpretation by the constitution, but marriage laws are not intrinsic to the state government. Therefore, by abridging marriage rights in the constitution the constitution itself is not being revised, just its implications given a set of laws.

this point, the best bet would be to popularly pass a counter-amendment in a few years. I suppose given that revisions take extra votes the courts will probably overturn the pro gay marriage amendment, but forcing the homophobes to rely on the judiciary instead of popular opinion to get their causes passed will be a huge long term blow to their cause.

And California republicans tend to have some semblance of restraint when it comes to the budget; Tom McClintok may be an evil human being but he has bitched about the expansion of state spending for a while.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:53 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Our state legislature ruled earlier that the constitution, as written, guaranteed gay marriage under a clause on gender equality. The amendment proposed by Prop 8 is in direct contradiction with that clause as interpreted. The California constitution (according to those who support court review of prop 8) doesn't provide for this sort of revision by means of popular vote. Therefore, since popular vote is not sufficient to pass it, the fact that it was approved by popular vote is not sufficient for its addition to the California constitution.

The same court that originally allowed gay marriages has already dismissed this argument. Unless I'm mistaken, the revision rules only apply to the constitution and as the consitution stands without the amendment there is no formal definition or discussion of marriage. The constitution was extrapolated to say that a law could not be made that specifically denied marriage rights to gay couples, but the anti gay marriage amendment does not actively revise the constitution. Laws exist within the state that deal with marriage, but they were not constitutionally dealt with until now. Laws are subject to interpretation by the constitution, but marriage laws are not intrinsic to the state government. Therefore, by abridging marriage rights in the constitution the constitution itself is not being revised, just its implications given a set of laws.

this point, the best bet would be to popularly pass a counter-amendment in a few years. I suppose given that revisions take extra votes the courts will probably overturn the pro gay marriage amendment, but forcing the homophobes to rely on the judiciary instead of popular opinion to get their causes passed will be a huge long term blow to their cause.

And California republicans tend to have some semblance of restraint when it comes to the budget; Tom McClintok may be an evil human being but he has bitched about the expansion of state spending for a while.


It goes further than marriage laws. It introduces an exception to the equality under the law clause, which defeats the clause itself. Furthermore, the amendment did not undo the ruling that gays are a suspect class, and thus subject to equal treatment under the law.

As for a "few years", that's a really nice thing to say when you're not the one having to wait the expected 10-15+ years to repeal this "amendment". Here's some food for thought: Some of these couples are 60+. Asking them to wait to see something they may not even live for is rather cruel.

As for having rejected the arguments, it has already been stated that courts are usually hesitant to rule on something that might not even pass. That they declined without comment raises suspicions toward this being the case.

Also, the legislature has filed an amicus brief this time ;). Let's see how much that's worth.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby 4=5 » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:42 am UTC

++$_ wrote: Right now, the people have voted that some people are not allowed to marry; this means that no one can. That would solve the problem in my opinion, since the state shouldn't be recognizing marriages anyway.

I agree, marriages and civil unions should be entirely separate, lets say I'm planning on living with my brother for the next ten years, a civil union would be logical but because the concept is currently tied up with marriage it couldn't happen.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kachi » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:47 am UTC

But it sure would be funny when that particular legislation were nullified and you wound up married to your brother. :shock:

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Outchanter » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:53 am UTC

Xaldibik wrote:Also, kind of contrasting to my point, it leads back to a quote my brothers English teacher said once, "That's the problem with democracy; 51 people can decide to kill 49."

That's what constitutional rights are supposed to protect against. In South Africa, the constitutional court ruled that gay marriage had to be allowed in accordance with a clause forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But then the South African constitution is fairly new and progressive.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:13 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:It goes further than marriage laws. It introduces an exception to the equality under the law clause, which defeats the clause itself. Furthermore, the amendment did not undo the ruling that gays are a suspect class, and thus subject to equal treatment under the law.


Marriage is a not a right enumerated in our constitution. A law can't retroactively shape the constitution this way, if anything the only thing you can say is that the State of California is no longer able to recognize any form of marriage on account of doing so would force the state to violate the equality clause.

Lucrece wrote:As for having rejected the arguments, it has already been stated that courts are usually hesitant to rule on something that might not even pass. That they declined without comment raises suspicions toward this being the case.

Also, the legislature has filed an amicus brief this time ;). Let's see how much that's worth.

It would have been much quieter if the court just killed it in July; if they felt they had grounds to do so they would have. There would have been a few complaints, but nothing comparing to the outrage of the courts overturning an amendment after giving it the go-ahead for a vote. And no matter how much you want this, you're hoping that the legislature filing an amicus is going to change things? Isn't this just saying "screw the consitution and democracy, I get what I want?" Having the courts overturn a popularly passed amendment after already saying that it could be passed is an insult to our legal system and our people, and it will be treated it as such.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Kachi » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:53 am UTC

Marriage is a not a right enumerated in our constitution. A law can't retroactively shape the constitution this way, if anything the only thing you can say is that the State of California is no longer able to recognize any form of marriage on account of doing so would force the state to violate the equality clause.


Honestly, I would prefer it if they just did that anyway.

But the constitutional rights thing brings me back to my driving example. Driving to my knowledge isn't enumerated in the constitution of the U.S. or any states as a right, but you can damn well bet that if you were in a minority group that was denied the "right" to drive for no expressly good reason, people would be pissed, people would fight for it, and it wouldn't be right-- constitution, popular vote, or whatever legal basis was being used to discriminate against you.

And that's just one common "right" among many others that isn't usually a constitutional right. It's an implicit right.

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby zombie_monkey » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:40 am UTC

Tieing up marriage with the state is a bad historical leftover.
You may be surprised to know that in Bulgaria, you can't get a Orthodox Christian marriage without first getting a civil marriage. That's both a law and a church rule; and the church _likes_ it that way, and ironically they see this as giving _them_ more legitimacy and power.
I completely agree that the most sensible way for the stte to ahndle this is to stop concerning itself with anything called "mariage". It's loaded lagnuage. But precedents like this make it very hard to let "marriage" be solely the domain of religion and have the state have separate legal mechanisms. In the end what should happen is a transitional period should be announced in which currently "married" people can pick a type of legal partnership and after that all current marriages are transformed in some generic kind. The Creative Commons model in which they pick which rights they want to have give the other person(s) seems appropriate.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Cynical Idealist » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:39 pm UTC

4=5 wrote:
++$_ wrote: Right now, the people have voted that some people are not allowed to marry; this means that no one can. That would solve the problem in my opinion, since the state shouldn't be recognizing marriages anyway.

I agree, marriages and civil unions should be entirely separate, lets say I'm planning on living with my brother for the next ten years, a civil union would be logical but because the concept is currently tied up with marriage it couldn't happen.

I've held that opinion for quite some time. Let all the legal rights and obligations be tied to a civil union, and let the churches marry whoever they want to marry. If the Catholic Church doesn't want gays to marry, gay people can still get all the same rights as straight people (who ALSO have civil unions), and they can probably find a church willing to marry them anyway.


Also, the legislature has filed an amicus brief this time ;). Let's see how much that's worth.

Ooh, that's good. Hopefully it works well.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

MikeBabaguh
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:21 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby MikeBabaguh » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:26 pm UTC

As a native of California and a Democrat, I don't have a lot of problems with Arnold. He may be a Republican but he's pretty conservative when it comes to economic issues and pretty progressive when it comes to social issues. I just wish he would ignore his party lobbyists and stop fucking with unions.

Also, one of the reasons courts exist is to overthrow stupid laws the public thought they wanted. Prop 8 is one of them. Sometimes the people don't know what's best for them.
Pursue happiness, with diligence.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Cynical Idealist » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:30 pm UTC

MikeBabaguh wrote: Sometimes the people don't know what's best for them.

Bring out the teflon-coated slope!
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Jebobek » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:49 pm UTC

Its not that we can't let people vote because they're dumb, its that we can't let people vote on things that they should not vote for in the first place.

Lets do a vote: "who thinks the Phillies should play in the next world series?" Even if most baseball fans vote NO, well screw them, the Phillies should play if they're good enough.

Lets do a vote: "should we all go out and kill (Insert Complete Asshole here)?" Even if we have a majority, its impeding on someone else.

Howabout something more realistic: "Should we spend money on handicap ramps? Lets vote." Howabout we never vote, ever, and force public buildings to build ramps for Christ's sake?
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:00 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Lucrece wrote:It goes further than marriage laws. It introduces an exception to the equality under the law clause, which defeats the clause itself. Furthermore, the amendment did not undo the ruling that gays are a suspect class, and thus subject to equal treatment under the law.


Marriage is a not a right enumerated in our constitution. A law can't retroactively shape the constitution this way, if anything the only thing you can say is that the State of California is no longer able to recognize any form of marriage on account of doing so would force the state to violate the equality clause.

Lucrece wrote:As for having rejected the arguments, it has already been stated that courts are usually hesitant to rule on something that might not even pass. That they declined without comment raises suspicions toward this being the case.

Also, the legislature has filed an amicus brief this time ;). Let's see how much that's worth.

It would have been much quieter if the court just killed it in July; if they felt they had grounds to do so they would have. There would have been a few complaints, but nothing comparing to the outrage of the courts overturning an amendment after giving it the go-ahead for a vote. And no matter how much you want this, you're hoping that the legislature filing an amicus is going to change things? Isn't this just saying "screw the consitution and democracy, I get what I want?" Having the courts overturn a popularly passed amendment after already saying that it could be passed is an insult to our legal system and our people, and it will be treated it as such.


Marriage doesn't need to be enumerated. As per Loving v. Virginia, it is federally recognized as a civil right. The California constitution may not conflict with federal precedent.

And speaking of "screw the constitution", that's a question you should be asking the proponents about. This is not some mere democracy; it's a republic, and one designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:57 pm UTC

The courts already ruled that the Proposition can't be overturned on the grounds you proposed; having the legislature pressure the courts into undoing their decision has absolutely nothing to do with rule of law. Minorities were not protected by Constitution in the way you wanted them to be, and by reversing the earlier decision due to what certain people feel would be best would be a gross violation of the Constitution and what people expect from law.

And wasn't Loving v. Virginia partially based off of anti-discrimination law already passed by the federal government? That's more of a case of federal law contradicting local statute, which has nothing to do with this case. In any case, the legal arguments here dont matter; the Supreme Court of California has made their decision months ago.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby segmentation fault » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Minorities were not protected by Constitution in the way you wanted them to be


didnt the court rule that they were which caused them to strike down the law that said they couldnt marry?
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Yes, but they also let Prop 8 proceed despite cases being filed against it in June. They got about halfway to what Lucrece wants, but the law as interpreted by fairly progressive judges did not prohit an only 50% approval rate for this amendment.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby clintonius » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:29 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:reversing the earlier decision due to what certain people feel would be best would be a gross violation of the Constitution and what people expect from law.

Kind of like what happened with Prop 8? Honestly, it's a direct contradiction of an earlier ruling. The fact that they allowed it doesn't bode well for the current law suits, but that in no way means that trying to appeal it would be a violation of the law. The case for repeal is strengthened by the fact that it has the governator's backing -- I'm not sure if the attempt to keep it off the ballot did.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:22 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:The courts already ruled that the Proposition can't be overturned on the grounds you proposed; having the legislature pressure the courts into undoing their decision has absolutely nothing to do with rule of law. Minorities were not protected by Constitution in the way you wanted them to be, and by reversing the earlier decision due to what certain people feel would be best would be a gross violation of the Constitution and what people expect from law.

And wasn't Loving v. Virginia partially based off of anti-discrimination law already passed by the federal government? That's more of a case of federal law contradicting local statute, which has nothing to do with this case. In any case, the legal arguments here dont matter; the Supreme Court of California has made their decision months ago.


They didn't rule on the issue. They PASSED on ruling on the issue. Remember the "no comment" part. Violating the concept of equality under the law through such an amendment, and proposing that the courst have no right to be the ultimate arbiters in determining what rights are guaranteed by the Constitution IS an insult to the Constitution.

Loving v. Virginia's ruling wasn't a discourse on anti-discrimination laws. It was a ruling establishing marriage as a civil right, just as the right to liberty, property, and freedom to pursuit happiness; this is federal precedent. Californians can't suddenly say "No, the federal court system is wrong; marriage is not a civil right, and thus not subject to the equal protection clause".
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:10 am UTC

clintonius wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:reversing the earlier decision due to what certain people feel would be best would be a gross violation of the Constitution and what people expect from law.

Kind of like what happened with Prop 8? Honestly, it's a direct contradiction of an earlier ruling. The fact that they allowed it doesn't bode well for the current law suits, but that in no way means that trying to appeal it would be a violation of the law. The case for repeal is strengthened by the fact that it has the governator's backing -- I'm not sure if the attempt to keep it off the ballot did.


It's not really a contradiction as marriage is not in the constitution; the ruling that originially allowed gay marriage was on how the constitution allowed the state to handle marriage, but as marriage is not in the constitution it's not a fundamental change to it to make it prohibit same-sex marriage; it just changes the implications of rulings on lesser laws. And I'll have to ask again, if it does pass due to political pressure on the courts, doesn't that... disgust you a litte? Perhaps you like the idea of having same-sex marriage, but the implication is that the law is meaningless and politicians playing games is the moral and proper way to get things done.


Los Angeles Times wrote:The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove an anti-gay marriage initiative from the November ballot.

Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters.

Gay rights lawyers also argued that petitions circulated to get the measure on the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect.

The court, meeting at its regular weekly conference, denied the petition without comment in a brief order.

Seems a bit stricter then simply "passing" on the opprotunity to make a judgement, the court clearly shot down the petition. I'm no legal expert, but for the time being the courts have made their decision.

I did do a bit of reading on Loving v Virginia, and while the 14th Amendment itself might ultimately be used to protect same-sex marriage, the case itself established marraige as a human right insofar as procreation is fundamentally human. Several courts have already ruled on this issue, and while marriage may be extended as fundamental right irrespective of baby-making this particular case did not.

I'm maintaining that the best way of handling this at this point is to pass a counter amendment which despite recieved the popular vote could be legally struck down as doing so will make the social conservative movement look incredibly weak and running contrary to popular opinion, in turn accelerating it's loss of support and demise. Equal rights between races was established almost 160 years ago, yet they are still clearly not equal within society. Simply oppressing popular opinion under the law leaves smoldering resentments; sometimes truly destroying bad ideas requires a bit more subtly.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests