CA Supreme Court asks Brown for response to Prop 8 suits.

The Supreme Court of California has asked Attorney-General Jerry Brown for a response to the lawsuits challenging Prop 8. They aren’t asking Brown for his opinion on it’s validity; only whether they should accept the cases for review, and if so should they suspend Prop 8 until they rule on it’s validity. He’s duty bound to defend Prop 8’s validity in court to the fullest extent of his ability regardless of his personal feelings. Will he ask them to review it? Will they hear it? What about suspending Prop 8 while it’s under consideration? Won’t that create even more problems if they uphold Prop 8 in the end? In Re Marriage Cases took about 4 years to resolve; how long will this take to resolve?

In case anyone’s interested, Brown is urging the court to hear the case (unlike Campaign for California Families which wanted the case dismissed w/ a hearing). He’s also arguing against a stay.

Thanks for the information. I am utterly blown away by the bigots who don’t see how Prop. 8 takes away a right.

You don’t say. :rolleyes:

This is not meant to be snarky—seriously—but if you’re truly interested in understanding the other side, try not assuming that everyone who opposes SSM is a bigot. If you’re not genuinely interested in understanding, carry on.

In fairness, based upon the post, rivulus didn’t assert that all SSM opponents are bigots.

Something seems fishy here. The Suprme Court of California is asking the AG, an Executive Branch position whether they should take on a case? I don’t get that.

I don’t need to assume that they are bigots. I know they are.

It makes sense. The plantiffs in the case are suing the state, so the Court is asking the Attorney General, who’s the state’s legal representative for a response.

This is common at the federal level too. The SCotUS often asks the Solicitor General to weigh in, essentially as to whether a particular issue is likely to be sufficiently important, far-ranging, or recurrent to warrant the Court’s time. The Court is free to disregard the SG’s views.

You are correct. But I don’t think that he meant that he lamented to not understanding the bigots who oppose SSM, having a fair understanding of the non-bigots who oppose SSM. But I’ could be wrong and allow him to clarify if he wishes.

Let me guess, you think anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot. Is that right? If so, how can I thank you for this novel observation and profound contribution?

Interesting, I had no idea. Ignorance fought.

There is no non bigoted reason to oppose SSM. I’m done being with PC with you people.

Why should he need an argument that is novel and profound when we are simply rehashing the same bigotry from anti-miscegenation laws but with Gay Marriage instead of Interracial Marriage being banned.

That’s the great thing about inventing your own tautologies, you never have to prove your proposition. Here, let me try: anyone who does not see that one can oppose SSM and not be a bigot is a schertellhumper*.

This is FUN!!!

Uh, because they’re not the same thing? One might look to older laws for guidance, but that doesn’t mean your work is done. There’s a couple of pit threads right now where this is discussed.

I completely agree. After all, you probably have nothing against gays. I bet some of your best friends are gay. They just shouldn’t marry each other because being gay is an abomination. We can prove it’s an abomination because it says so in the Bible, and you can’t get more iron clad proof than something that was said a couple of thousands of years ago by a guy who lived in a yurt claiming to speak on behalf of a spirit. After all, it isn’t as if marriage is a legal contract.

Actually, they are. Two adults who love each other are told they can’t get married, because the law doesn’t allow them to get married.

Any other details are irrelevant, because nobody except a bigot actually thinks those details should make a difference. Nobody except a bigot would deny a loving couple the ability to create a family over those details.

The only possible argument for there being a difference is the ability to make a baby. Since nobody in the history of the nation, prior to now, has suggested that the rights that go along with marriage should be contingent on baby making, I think people are bringing it up just to argue against SSM. Straight men and women who are just as medically unable to make babies as a gay couple still get to have the rights of marriage.

You’re proving my point.