Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban

[LittleFuzzy]

[QUOTE=Hazir;129611]Is there a blue state where a ban was passed?[/quote[

California? Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. . .

And let me point out again; if people either don't know or care in a referendum they are going to vote for the status-quo, and the status-quo in most states is no marriage equality. California is the only exception to the rule, and even only because there was a short window of opportunity to get married and a humongous effort of opponents to push through proposition 8.

As I've mentioned more than once, the California public has passed such legislation twice now. Prop 22 which got overruled at the state level as going against the state constitution prompting the Prop 8 amendment to the state constitution which is now being challenged on federal grounds.

[Hazir]

[QUOTE=LittleFuzzy;129616]

Is there a blue state where a ban was passed?[/quote[

California? Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. . .



As I've mentioned more than once, the California public has passed such legislation twice now. Prop 22 which got overruled at the state level as going against the state constitution prompting the Prop 8 amendment to the state constitution which is now being challenged on federal grounds.

You are also aware of the recent poll figures ? Today proposition 8 could not be passed.

[LittleFuzzy]

[QUOTE=Hazir;129617]

You are also aware of the recent poll figures ? Today proposition 8 could not be passed.

That's also what the poll figures showed a week before it passed. The poll figures are either under-counting Latino hostility or failing to sufficiently account for the swing from pulpit-based GOTV.

[Hazir]

2008 pro 50% anti 40%
2012 pro 59% anti 34%

Bridging a 10% gap in a referendum, is a different game than bridging a 25% gap.

also it there is no reason to assume anti feelings in the hispanic community is especially hard given that marriage equality is spreading in Latin America as well. There are same sex married couples in Mexico as we speak.

[Dreadnaught]

Not to spill the other thread here, but this seems to suggest that the cause is advancing.

[Hazir]

And now New Mexico, which doesn't surprise me even though the news took me by surprise

[Hazir]

Any ideas about when the last marriage ban is going to come down?

[Dreadnaught]

As I've said before, there is a real risk of overreach here. The Supreme Court basically left it up to each state to fight this out.

All these lower-court judges nullifying state laws about marriage is just begging to have the issue thrown back to the Supreme Court with a more specific question about marriage itself. That's an area that the court may be reluctant to rule on. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, is a "left wing" justice who has said that the court should be careful in imposing major social changes on people. She said this in the context of abortion rulings, however, as I've said in the past, I think there are parallels here that could backfire on the gay rights movement.

[RandBlade]

I fail to see your logic. The Federal Supreme Court chose to leave it to States, so State Supreme Courts are filling in the vacuum. What do you expect?

[Dreadnaught]

Sorry, I didn't clarify: these are federal judges ruling on state laws.

[RandBlade]

Oh. In which case I'd expect it back in SCOTUS though I would eventually anyway.

An ever increasing number of States have legalised it now though right? And the Federal government recognises them now too if done in a State it's legal in?

[Hazir]

Oh. In which case I'd expect it back in SCOTUS though I would eventually anyway.

An ever increasing number of States have legalised it now though right? And the Federal government recognises them now too if done in a State it's legal in?

It's a red herring argument anyway; some people will always be against certain changes in society. Should the Supreme Court have waited with a ruling on interracial marriage untill the last member of the Aryan Nation had given up his resistance? And what exactly is the point where a Court handles in line with society? Is it when society in majority is in favour of something? Is it when 67% is in favour? And if 67% is the number, why is there such a fundamental difference with 66%?

What Ginsburg does, and Dread condones is absolving the Courts of their responsability to hold up the rights of everyone, including small minorities, even against the desires of the majority. If this is the way she thinks she is a disgrace for the high office she holds.

[LittleFuzzy]

Any ideas about when the last marriage ban is going to come down?

I don't think it will happen within ten years. After that, who knows.

And Hazir, the justices of the Court are all too well aware of the limits of their power. They've been fighting the pushback on their rulings regarding race and equal protection for fifty years and they're still getting cases. It may have been necessary to deal with it that way, but the courts were and remain a poor tool for changing society. It really is something that should and ought to be dealt with legislatively.

[Hazir]

I don't think it will happen within ten years. After that, who knows.

And Hazir, the justices of the Court are all too well aware of the limits of their power. They've been fighting the pushback on their rulings regarding race and equal protection for fifty years and they're still getting cases. It may have been necessary to deal with it that way, but the courts were and remain a poor tool for changing society. It really is something that should and ought to be dealt with legislatively.

Yes, courts are indeed a poor tool to change society, that does not mean that they don't have an obligation to those sectors of society who are deprived of their rights. That is the fundamental reason why we want our courts to be independent; not just so that they won't do the bidding of the executive, but also because they won't do the bidding of the sovereigns every whim.

[Hazir]

One has to presume the Justices also know these numbers; recent polls People opposing equality are outnumber by a large margin now. The Ginsburg argument isn't only disingenuous, it's also based in a wrong understanding of what society is opining on the issue. I think we're looking at 5 years tops for bans to either disappear or being voided of any relevance.

[RandBlade]

Justices aren't politicians though. Justices should void bans because its the right thing to do, even when unpopular. Politicians should do so because its the right thing to do AND popular.

[GGT]

I don't think it will happen within ten years. After that, who knows.

And Hazir, the justices of the Court are all too well aware of the limits of their power. They've been fighting the pushback on their rulings regarding race and equal protection for fifty years and they're still getting cases. It may have been necessary to deal with it that way, but the courts were and remain a poor tool for changing society. It really is something that should and ought to be dealt with legislatively.

So, you agree with President Obama....and prefer using legislatures as change agents (aka socially engineered public policy)?

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually, I prefer to see a more active Court in general. I just understand why the justices don't care for it and I can sympathize with their reasons even when I think they should get over them. But I don't agree with President Obama. The Executive has significantly more power and authority than the Courts and past Presidents have led the way with some pretty significant changes just via influence using the bully pulpit. Obama trying to duck things and say "leave it to the legislatures" is a big fat "screw you, you're not my constituency" to the community and he should be castigated for it. His direct power over legislation passed years before his administration is limited and it's practically nonexistent when it comes to the actions of the states, but he could do plenty indirectly, or on the edges, and he has mostly refused to do so.

[GGT]

Sounds like a distinction without a difference (or the other way around). Obama has consistently said he prefers legislative activism, beginning at local/state levels. FFS, that's practically "Republican".

[Dreadnaught]

What Ginsburg does, and Dread condones is absolving the Courts of their responsability to hold up the rights of everyone, including small minorities, even against the desires of the majority. If this is the way she thinks she is a disgrace for the high office she holds.

Courts are meant to uphold rights. Defining and creating new rights is a substantially more difficult and potentially alienating task.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sounds like a distinction without a difference (or the other way around). Obama has consistently said he prefers legislative activism, beginning at local/state levels. FFS, that's practically "Republican".

I'm not Republican. And legislative activism may be preferable but then it's not happening or going in the wrong direction, he is not absolved by saying "that should be legislative." The Court can, it's in a different position with radically different powers and means of influence.

[Hazir]

Courts are meant to uphold rights. Defining and creating new rights is a substantially more difficult and potentially alienating task.

I would imagine that the right to equal treatment before the law has been around for a while. Please explain why you would call its application novel.

[Hazir]

Actually, I prefer to see a more active Court in general. I just understand why the justices don't care for it and I can sympathize with their reasons even when I think they should get over them. But I don't agree with President Obama. The Executive has significantly more power and authority than the Courts and past Presidents have led the way with some pretty significant changes just via influence using the bully pulpit. Obama trying to duck things and say "leave it to the legislatures" is a big fat "screw you, you're not my constituency" to the community and he should be castigated for it. His direct power over legislation passed years before his administration is limited and it's practically nonexistent when it comes to the actions of the states, but he could do plenty indirectly, or on the edges, and he has mostly refused to do so.

Are Justices like Ginsberg not guilty of the same? She's giving people a big 'fuck you' as well by placing public opinion over what is in the Constitution. The dishonesty in her position is gobsmacking; equality in rights to marry are either right or they are not right. They shouldn't be right only if the polls are favorable. Unless of course you want to give up the notion that the rule of law is something that actually matters, even in the face of democratic decisions.

This kind of dishonesty very often makes me understand why lots of people dislike liberals. With people like Scalia at least you know who's the enemy. When you debate with them you know positions are never going to meet, but at least you don't have to be ready for the moment they turn and stab you in the back.

[RandBlade]

Courts are meant to uphold rights. Defining and creating new rights is a substantially more difficult and potentially alienating task.

What right is new in your eyes? Marriage? Equal protection (aka the 14th Amendment)?

[Dreadnaught]

I would imagine that the right to equal treatment before the law has been around for a while. Please explain why you would call its application novel.

What right is new in your eyes? Marriage? Equal protection (aka the 14th Amendment)?

Because groups entitled to legal equality at the constitutional level have to be defined in fairly specific ways. Homosexuals as a protected group is a fairly novel concept both historically, culturally and legally.

And yes, I think the legal/constitutional "right" to marriage is a new concept. One that I don't support, both in terms of my principles of avoiding the creation of too many "rights" as well as my skepticism in the value of state-defined marriage.

[Flixy]

I thought the point of legal equality was that it applies to everyone, not just certain groups?

[RandBlade]

Because groups entitled to legal equality at the constitutional level have to be defined in fairly specific ways. Homosexuals as a protected group is a fairly novel concept both historically, culturally and legally.

But it has been so defined already.

And yes, I think the legal/constitutional "right" to marriage is a new concept. One that I don't support, both in terms of my principles of avoiding the creation of too many "rights" as well as my skepticism in the value of state-defined marriage.

New? Does a unanimous SCOTUS decision in 1967 fall as new?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[Dreadnaught]

I thought the point of legal equality was that it applies to everyone, not just certain groups?

But it has been so defined already.
New? Does a unanimous SCOTUS decision in 1967 fall as new?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Of course not, otherwise people would demand "equality" as often as a Berlin socialist for any variety of things. Equal protection under the law is generally applied in situations that improperly impact/specifically target certain protected groups.

I also don't think the environment around Loving v. Virginia is really anything remotely like the environment today. That's a political argument to me, not a legal argument. And it's a political argument that I agree with. But that doesn't mean I think judges should be meddling in laws on this issue.

[RandBlade]

There are two distinct questions.

1: Are gays a protected group like blacks etc
2: Is marriage a right.

On number 2 Loving is completely relevant. You claimed marriage as a right "is a new concept" but in Loving the Supreme Court unanimously decided nearly half a century ago that: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" ... To deny this fundamental freedom ... etc.

The fourteenth amendment is specifically invoked. That destroys any notion that marriage is somehow exempt or not a "right". It is unanimously a fundamental right and has been so for nearly half a century. So the only issue is do we accept gays as a protected group or not, not whether if they are it applies to marriage. If they are then precedent says it must apply to marriage.

[Hazir]

Because groups entitled to legal equality at the constitutional level have to be defined in fairly specific ways. Homosexuals as a protected group is a fairly novel concept both historically, culturally and legally.

And yes, I think the legal/constitutional "right" to marriage is a new concept. One that I don't support, both in terms of my principles of avoiding the creation of too many "rights" as well as my skepticism in the value of state-defined marriage.

This kind of false reasoning is exactly why i have always and vehemently opposed the term gay marriage. The question if there is or is not a constitutional right to marry is utterly irrelevant. The relevant question is if a state has the right to regulate marriage in a way that excludes people of the same gender from entering into it. It all the way up just a question of equality and equality alone. The fact that a particular minority was persecuted only quite recently should never be an excuse to put their rights on hold.