Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, it's about dang time.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.html

Ninth Circuit, of course they did. Ninth Circuit don't cotton to none of dat der democracy and republic stuff.

Can't say I am crying in my beer over this one. Had I had my forms in the mail early enough I would've put my vote against the ban in, but oh well.

Frazzled wrote:Ninth Circuit, of course they did. Ninth Circuit don't cotton to none of dat der democracy and republic stuff.

I'm sure that's the problem. It has nothing to do with it needed to be overturned or anything.
And I always find it odd that the Conservatives would want the Gov. to tell them who they
can or can't marry. Could it be they fear Gay marriage MORE than their precious "Government get
out of my life" stance? Odd.

edit:
I feel the day is soon that I won't make spelling mistakes.....

Frazzled wrote:Ninth Circuit, of course they did. Ninth Circuit don't cotton to none of dat der democracy and republic stuff.

The way Proposition 8 is written, its fairly clear that it denies legal privileges to citizens.

Now we just sit back and wait for the voters to ban it again. Oh California. Your endless gay marriage battle has been the source of boundless entertainment

Someone really needs to tell Americans how to run a country. I can't think of anywhere else on earth that things bound between legality and illegality, it's really stupid.

LordofHats wrote:Now we just sit back and wait for the voters to ban it again. Oh California. Your endless gay marriage battle has been the source of boundless entertainment

I love that Iowa can say "In before California!"

Joey wrote:Someone really needs to tell Americans how to run a country. I can't think of anywhere else on earth that things bound between legality and illegality, it's really stupid.

An over-reliance on democracy tends to have that effect. California, with those lovely ballot day initiatives is one of the worst offenders.

"I know, we'll let the voters decide if they want a property tax ceiling!"

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:Someone really needs to tell Americans how to run a country. I can't think of anywhere else on earth that things bound between legality and illegality, it's really stupid.

An over-reliance on democracy tends to have that effect. California, with those lovely ballot day initiatives is one of the worst offenders.

"I know, we'll let the voters decide if they want a property tax ceiling!"

Yeah, I remember when they voted to increase the police budget, then voted for a tax increase to pay for it...

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Ninth Circuit, of course they did. Ninth Circuit don't cotton to none of dat der democracy and republic stuff.

I'm sure that's the problem. It has nothing to do with it needed to be overturned or anything.
And I always find it odd that the Conservatives would want the Gov. to tell them who they
can or can't marry. Could it be they fear Gay marriage MORE than their precious "Government get
out of my life" stance? Odd.

edit:
I feel the day is soon that I won't make spelling mistakes.....

I don't want the government telling me to do or not do anything. But I hate judges telling me that even more.
The democratic process works. Look at Washington. Bring up the issue to a vote in two years then it will go your way. Using judges short circuits the democratic process and creates a royal sticking point for society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Now we just sit back and wait for the voters to ban it again. Oh California. Your endless gay marriage battle has been the source of boundless entertainment

True dat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Someone really needs to tell Americans how to run a country. I can't think of anywhere else on earth that things bound between legality and illegality, it's really stupid.

Don't you have a mountain lion to kill somewhere?

Well I am pleased as punch as I have been fighting this fight for since the bill was passed (mostly stealing bumperstickers and signs and yelling at people but hey its fun)

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Now we just sit back and wait for the voters to ban it again. Oh California. Your endless gay marriage battle has been the source of boundless entertainment

I love that Iowa can say "In before California!"

Joey wrote:Someone really needs to tell Americans how to run a country. I can't think of anywhere else on earth that things bound between legality and illegality, it's really stupid.

An over-reliance on democracy tends to have that effect. California, with those lovely ballot day initiatives is one of the worst offenders.

"I know, we'll let the voters decide if they want a property tax ceiling!"

I like that over reliance on democracy thing. It separates us from tyranny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnny-Crass wrote:Well I am pleased as punch as I have been fighting this fight for since the bill was passed (mostly stealing bumperstickers and signs and yelling at people but hey its fun)

Speaking of petty tyrants...

I don't want the government telling me to do or not do anything. But I hate judges telling me that even more.
The democratic process works. Look at Washington. Bring up the issue to a vote in two years then it will go your way. Using judges short circuits the democratic process and creates a royal sticking point for society.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But in the case of California, I would say that judges coming in and beating some heads together is a near requirement on most issues, PARTICULARLY in the area of civil rights of any kind, shape, or form. Or anything vaguely RESEMBLING what might be a civil right.

Joey wrote:Someone really needs to tell Americans how to run a country. I can't think of anywhere else on earth that things bound between legality and illegality, it's really stupid.

Given how much better they are doing as a nation than the UK, I have a strong feeling that if we try, they'll laugh for a few weeks then flip us off.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Ninth Circuit, of course they did. Ninth Circuit don't cotton to none of dat der democracy and republic stuff.

The way Proposition 8 is written, its fairly clear that it denies legal privileges to citizens.

The 9th Circuit disagrees with you.

This was decided based on Romer v. Evans, which (IMO) is pretty terrible Constitutional law. The case says that even if a law is otherwise Constitutional, if it is enacted for a discriminatory purpose, the law is unconstitutional. This is really stretching the Equal Protection clause. (edit: but in line with Lemon, another terrible case)

The grounds of the 9th Circuit decision are very narrow - while the 9th circuit has authority over all of the western states, the holding here seems deliberately structured to only apply to California. This should be a cause for concern for gay marriage proponents, not something to celebrate (although the short term gain is going to be trumpeted, not the long-term harm).

Something to consider: if Prop 8 had removed domestic partnerships, the 9th Circuit probably would have upheld the law.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't want the government telling me to do or not do anything. But I hate judges telling me that even more.
The democratic process works. Look at Washington. Bring up the issue to a vote in two years then it will go your way. Using judges short circuits the democratic process and creates a royal sticking point for society.

Using Judges doesn't short circuit the democratic process. Judges simply enforce the laws that have already been ratified in a democratic process. It's Prop 8 that tried to circumvent the democratic process by trying to pass a law that was, itself, illegal due to higher laws.

I don't know Frazz. This is what? The third or fourth time this has happened? Hell I've lost count. California keeps banning it and judges keep overturning it. You'd think they'd have something better to do than to continue wasting their time in this endless back and forth (from a practical stand point).

I try Frazzled, I try

Frazzled wrote:
I like that over reliance on democracy thing. It separates us from tyranny.

Tyranny of the majority is a well documented concept.

Grakmar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I don't want the government telling me to do or not do anything. But I hate judges telling me that even more.
The democratic process works. Look at Washington. Bring up the issue to a vote in two years then it will go your way. Using judges short circuits the democratic process and creates a royal sticking point for society.

Using Judges doesn't short circuit the democratic process. Judges simply enforce the laws that have already been ratified in a democratic process. It's Prop 8 that tried to circumvent the democratic process by trying to pass a law that was, itself, illegal due to higher laws.

Horse gak. They just overturned a law that had been ratified in a democratic process. There is no Bill of Rights provision obviated. Remember if the judges giveth, in the future they may taketh away.

Frankly this will likely be overturned.

biccat wrote:
The 9th Circuit disagrees with you.

I agree, the decision was bad. The same effective result could have been achieved with greater ease, and fewer long term consequences.

You'd think they'd have something better to do than to continue wasting their time in this endless back and forth (from a practical stand point).

Don't know much about CA, do ya?

Frazzled wrote:Frankly this will likely be overturned.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Kennedy was the author of Romer, he's not going to back down now. And the 4 other petty tyrants on the SCOTUS are obviously going to support him.

It should get overturned, but I'm not sure it will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
The 9th Circuit disagrees with you.

I agree, the decision was bad. The same effective result could have been achieved with greater ease, and fewer long term consequences.

Only by ignoring clear Supreme Court precedent, which would have resulted in the case being overturned.

LordofHats wrote:I don't know Frazz. This is what? The third or fourth time this has happened? Hell I've lost count. California keeps banning it and judges keep overturning it. You'd think they'd have something better to do than to continue wasting their time in this endless back and forth (from a practical stand point).

Thats my point. Each time this comes up in the democratic process the "banners" (I get confused who's arguing which way) or those opposed to gay marriage recieve fewer and fewer votes. Trajectory wise the next run at this would have likely put the majority in the pro gay marriage camp (again is that against or for prop 8 this time?). By using the engine of democracy there is a substantially higher level of support from the populace and institutions.

SOFDC wrote:

You'd think they'd have something better to do than to continue wasting their time in this endless back and forth (from a practical stand point).

Don't know much about CA, do ya?

I often get the sense it's best I don't

Such things could drive greater men to madness.

biccat wrote:
Only by ignoring clear Supreme Court precedent, which would have resulted in the case being overturned.

What Supreme Court precedent would be ignored by arguing that the denial of recognition and validity regarding the marriage of two, hypothetical, homosexual tourists abridges the privileges accorded to citizens?

Frazzled wrote:
Thats my point. Each time this comes up in the democratic process the "banners" (I get confused who's arguing which way) or those opposed to gay marriage recieve fewer and fewer votes. Trajectory wise the next run at this would have likely put the majority in the pro gay marriage camp (again is that against or for prop 8 this time?). By using the engine of democracy there is a substantially higher level of support from the populace and institutions.

It only comes up repeatedly because it continues to be struck down.

Eliminating the role of courts changes that process substantially.

I've never really understood the opposition to Gay marriage, if two people want to love each other what do I care? I would love though for Newt to jump in on how it ruins the sanctity of marriage though, now that would be a fun argument to watch.

I have my own issues to deal with though. While I actively support Gay marriage and have gone to some rallies, I'm still on the fence about them being able to have children. Is it wrong that I can accept homosexuality and those that choose to live that way, but I don't believe that is should be seen as the norm or completely acceptable? It's not that I think Gay parents would do a bad job, I don't even think it would be all that different, some will be great at it some will suck at it just like straight couples. I don't think that gay couples are going to brainwash their children into being gay either.

I guess I'm just bigoted to a point and it is something I will have to work on because I can't see the logic in my stance. I can see homosexuality as being an acceptable alternative but only acceptable as an alternative and that it should not be treated as the norm.....Does that make sense to anybody? Can you explain the flaw in my thinking? Because I can't.

I'm serious, I'm not trolling.

Such things could drive greater men to madness.

Only if you make attempts to apply logic to it.

Andrew1975 wrote:I can see homosexuality as being an acceptable alternative but only acceptable as an alternative and that it should not be treated as the norm.....Does that make sense to anybody? Can you explain the flaw in my thinking? Because I can't.

It really depends on how you view sexuality as a whole. Is it primarily for reproduction, or primarily for fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SOFDC wrote:

Such things could drive greater men to madness.

Only if you make attempts to apply logic to it.

I mean, its not that weird.

Its a state with a highly diverse population in terms of ethnicity, and ideology.

Just look at the numbers in Presidential elections, the Democrats generally win, but not by a whole lot.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:I can see homosexuality as being an acceptable alternative but only acceptable as an alternative and that it should not be treated as the norm.....Does that make sense to anybody? Can you explain the flaw in my thinking? Because I can't.

It really depends on how you view sexuality as a whole. Is it primarily for reproduction, or primarily for fun?

I don't see it as either really.....well exclusively either way. It's fun and it does manifest in reproduction. I also see it as an important part of human sexuality and of a loving couple, but it can also be a dirty lot of fun between two consenting adults, and it's not like we are running low on population. So I don't think that helps with the answer.