# CA Supreme Court asks Brown for response to Prop 8 suits. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931 "2008-11-16T00:30:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/1 "2008-11-16T00:30:35Z")
The Supreme Court of California has [asked](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/14/BAMU1449RR.DTL&type=politics) 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? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/2 "2008-11-18T02:15:21Z")
In case anyone’s interested, Brown is [urging](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/17/BAGP1467MF.DTL&feed=rss.news) 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. ---
**Author:** ![rivulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rivulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rivulus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/3 "2008-11-18T18:20:52Z")
Thanks for the information. I am utterly blown away by the bigots who don’t see how Prop. 8 takes away a right. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/4 "2008-11-18T18:32:01Z")
> [@](#): > > The Nov. 4 measure “does not alter the balance of power between the branches of government, nor does it undermine or eliminate fundamental rights,” said Mary McAlister, a lawyer for the organization. You don’t say. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/5 "2008-11-18T18:38:48Z")
> [@rivulus](#): > > Thanks for the information. I am utterly blown away by the bigots who don’t see how Prop. 8 takes away a right. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/6 "2008-11-18T18:48:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/7 "2008-11-18T18:49:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Xan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/ac8455/32.png) [@Xan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/8 "2008-11-18T18:51:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. I don’t need to assume that they are bigots. I know they are. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/9 "2008-11-18T18:57:49Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/10 "2008-11-18T19:31:35Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/11 "2008-11-18T19:36:28Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > In fairness, based upon the post, **rivulus** didn’t assert that all SSM opponents are bigots. 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/12 "2008-11-18T19:40:28Z")
> [@Xan](#): > > I don’t need to assume that they are bigots. I know they are. 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? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/13 "2008-11-18T19:46:57Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > 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. Interesting, I had no idea. Ignorance fought. ---
**Author:** ![Xan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/ac8455/32.png) [@Xan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/14 "2008-11-18T19:52:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? > :rolleyes: There is no non bigoted reason to oppose SSM. I’m done being with PC with you people. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/15 "2008-11-18T20:00:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/16 "2008-11-18T20:08:56Z")
> [@Xan](#): > > There is no non bigoted reason to oppose SSM. I’m done being with PC with you people. 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!!! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/17 "2008-11-18T20:11:39Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/18 "2008-11-18T20:16:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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!!! 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/19 "2008-11-18T20:24:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Uh, because they’re not the same thing? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Xan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/ac8455/32.png) [@Xan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/20 "2008-11-18T20:25:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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!!! You’re proving my point. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931.md?page=2)