I don’t know. I’m sure you know but are keeping your information closely clasped to your bosom so that you can lead me into a trap. I await with baited breath!
I assume the challengers failed to make that argument because they thought that it would have a poor chance of it succeeding. An argument has to be not only just, but have a chance of prevailing in the current political climate.
Here, the people removed their legal justification; the courts ruled that California’s Constitution required same-sex marriage and the people responded by making it explicitly say that it doesn’t.
If you contend that in the face of that move, the courts should still have the power to say otherwise, then you’ve passed “legal justification” and moved into overt rule by the judiciary.
But because it was mentioned in the decision ("…does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights” theory proffered by the Attorney General.") does that give any legal footing to a federal appeal? Or no? Was it just part of the opinion with no weight?
Because they’re idiots. The entire campaign against Proposition 8 has been run by fools. They were incompetent before the election and they’re incompetent now.
And the judges could have decided that amending the constitution in a way that raises important Equal Protection issues is a major revision of the CA State constitution (ETA and must therefore go through the legislature first.)
Unless your breath smells like minnows or fishing lure, I assume you mean 'bated. 
Yes – no one on that side wanted to make the federal challenge because, unlike a purely state law claim, if the California Supremes said that the federal constitution guaranteed same-sex marriage, that could be appealed to the federal court system, and it seems prudent to not do that now.
I’ve heard it said that the pro-SSM crowd would want to avoid a new SSM initiative in 2012 because Obama’s reelection bid would turn out much of the anti-SSM Latino vote that contributed to the passage of Prop. 8 in the first place.
Well, maybe they are and maybe they’re not, but I assure you that this particular decision is tactically sound. They do NOT want to punt this debate into the federal courts at the present time.
Well, I suppose they could have, but that would have been a dramatic change from all the previous case law dealing with amendments vs. revisions.
From the opinion:
Perhaps. I know absolutely nothing about the procedures for modifying the California Constitution. But I do know that you really, really don’t want to win this at the state level via a ruling that the federal Constitution guarantees a right to SSM, which is what I took you to be suggesting. Because a decision like that would be almost guaranteed to be overturned by SCOTUS, and that would be a very significant setback in the fight for equal rights. Which sucks, but there it is.
I’m sure that 20 or 50 years before the decision in Virginia v. Loving, someone might have made the same calculations regarding lawsuits to stop the banning of interracial marriages. Does that mean that the Virgina v. Loving decision was wrong? It was correct in 1967 but would have been incorrect in 1937? Did the words of the 14th amendment magically change their meaning?
I would say no. A Supreme Court in 1937 might have decided the contrary, and if they would have upheld a ban on interracial marriages, it would have been because they were blinded by their prejudices.
For the record, it appears that the court has only forbidden the word, not the practice. Two dudes can get married, but the state can’t call them married.
It’s nice to hear liberals saying “screw what the people say, screw what the courts say, we’re right PERIOD!”
“Not love, quoth he,
But crazitee,
Sets love a task like that!”
:eek:
It’s nice to hear conservatives lie about what liberals say. It’s also refreshing to hear conservatives not decry the “liberal activist judges disregarding the Constitution”.
Yeah, this is a nice thread.
There was no lie in that statement. It was an accurate characterization of the attitude of some on the pro SSM side. Yours, for example.
That’s what I was just thinking about. From the opinion…
In other words, the Court seems to say that same sex couples have identical substantive espousal rights as opposite sex couples, except same sex couples cannot use the term “marriage” as an official designation of a same sex union. The Court seems to have virtually gutted Prop. 8 by reducing it to an amendment about which label the state can hang on a civil union.
Read for comprehension, what you’re implying isn’t what they are saying.
From a purely legal standpoint; the decision was dead right. The way to effect change is at the ballot box; not in the courts.