# Prop 8 question **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 15, 2013, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056 "2013-06-15T06:58:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/41 "2013-06-26T16:37:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because they are being deprived of their right to pass referenda to amend their state’s constitution. Why would a federal court be required to uphold a right granted solely under a state constitution? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/42 "2013-06-27T15:02:37Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’d like to think that the majority of votes for governor were not based on his unwillingness to defend prop 8 in court. I don’t think people are that much of single issue voters, especially considering the outcome of the referendum. > [@Smapti](#): > > Then I guess we can conclude that the majority of voters didn’t care if the state defended Prop 8 or not. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m not sure how you made such a gigantic leap in logic there, but okay. If you say so. ISTM that “not being a deal-breaker” is functionally equivalent to “didn’t care.” Even if you don’t agree that they are (were) functionally equivalent, it’s not _that_ big a leap to get from one to the other. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/43 "2013-06-27T15:22:44Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > [“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html?1372257363&utm_hp_ref=politics) A fairly clear and concise statement. I’m not much of one for reading SCOTUS decisions on the hoof, as it were. Does anyone have a brief summary of the dissenters’ arguments in favor of granting standing? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/44 "2013-06-27T15:50:31Z")
(1) The California Supreme Court said they had standing and federal courts should defer to California courts as to California’s standing requirements. (2) If they didn’t grant standing the case could never be decided on its merits. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/45 "2013-06-27T16:08:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > (1) The California Supreme Court said they had standing and federal courts should defer to California courts as to California’s standing requirements. The ruling addresses that, and determined that the state court erred in granting the appellees standing; [QUOTE=Justice Roberts] After the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoined the state officials named as defendants from enforcing it, however, the inquiry under Article III changed. Respondents no longer had any injury to redress—they had won—and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal that order were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court. But the District Court had not ordered them to do or refrain from doing anything. To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a “personal and individual way.” Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560, n. 1. He must possess a “direct stake in the outcome” of the case. Arizonans for Official English, supra, at 64 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, petitioners had no “direct stake” in the outcome of their appeal. Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law… …Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > (2) If they didn’t grant standing the case could never be decided on its merits. It _was_ decided on its merits in the district court. The Supreme Court’s ruling here leaves the finding of the district court, which overturned Prop 8 in its entirety, intact. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/46 "2013-06-27T16:26:15Z")
I’m responding to post 43. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/47 "2013-06-27T16:40:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m responding to post 43. And I responded to post 44. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/48 "2013-06-27T16:42:08Z")
Um, ok. You go! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/49 "2013-06-27T18:11:41Z")
Thanks very much, both of you! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/50 "2013-06-27T18:14:15Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > And here it is, from [Scalia’s opinion.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf) (DOMA decision) Quite predictable, as Scalia believes that laws passed by legislatures are just peachy-keen and courts should avoid changing them because The People Have Spoken. No. There’s a key difference. Notice how you simply refer to “laws passed by legislatures?” But that’s not what Scalia says, is it? > [@Nino](#): > > And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. Here’s a quiz, **Musicat** : what’s the difference between the federal government’s powers and those of a state government? Answer: [spoiler]The federal government’s powers are listed in the Constitution. It has no power, expect that which the Constitution gives it. Its powers are supreme where it has them, but those powers are also limited to only those things the Constitution says. A state government has plenary power. It has no list of powers – it may legislate on any topic, in any area, except areas where the federal government’s powers or legislation interferes. So there’s a huge difference in the legislatures involved here. Do you see that? Do you understand the difference between state and federal power?[/spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/51 "2013-06-27T18:17:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > LOL! No, sorry. They have that right, still do. And they exercised it. Everything was in proper working order, including the challenge to the law brought on by gay marriage proponents. When it was struck down, it was STILL a proper exercise of the powers of the court and the people and the state. So the state, after losing the trial, decided not to pursue it any further, big fucking deal. Those bigoted morons who voted for Prop 8 still have their rights to pass whatever the fuck they can try to pass. > > Just like many things in life, conservatives cannot fathom that their right to do something does not mean that other people cannot exercise their rights to try to stop it. They should add a footnote to the decision today saying “No conservative rights were harmed in the making of this decision” :D:p;) If a majority of voters pass a law, and the governor refuses to defend it in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the governor has the power to veto any popularly-passed referendum. Is that your understanding as well? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/52 "2013-06-27T19:09:03Z")
The governor did not refuse to defend it in court. He refused to appeal the adverse decision. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/53 "2013-06-27T21:14:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If a majority of voters pass a law, and the governor refuses to defend it in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the governor has the power to veto any popularly-passed referendum. > > Is that your understanding as well? > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The governor did not refuse to defend it in court. He refused to appeal the adverse decision. The governor did his duty. They fought it, lost, and accepted it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/54 "2013-06-27T22:24:37Z")
I agree with the standing decision, but it is troubling that a state can enact a referendum process, but then be free not to stand by the decision of the voters (putting aside the subject of that referendum for a minute). I don’t think it is necessarily a federal question, but the feds have stepped in for much smaller state encroachments than this. A citizen of any state has been denied due process when a state sets up a process that purportedly gives him the power to vote to enact laws, but the executive officials refuse to defend the laws in court. Yes, I know the remedy is to impeach the governor or AG, or elect a new governor or AG, but that is a paper tiger because most people aren’t dedicated one issue voters. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/55 "2013-06-27T22:48:42Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > A citizen of any state has been denied due process when a state sets up a process that purportedly gives him the power to vote to enact laws, but the executive officials refuse to defend the laws in court. Yes, I know the remedy is to impeach the governor or AG, or elect a new governor or AG, but that is a paper tiger because most people aren’t dedicated one issue voters. It’s an interesting thing to discuss. What does a governor do when they disagree with a referendum and agree with the court’s decision? Do they defend it halfheartedly? Do they hire the best advocate that they can for the other side and have them do it? What if a governor disagrees with the court as far as their personal feelings but knows for certain that an appeal will fail because there are clear Constitutional issues and they don’t want to waste State funds on a fool’s errand? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/56 "2013-06-27T23:20:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If a majority of voters pass a law, and the governor refuses to defend it in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the governor has the power to veto any popularly-passed referendum. > > Is that your understanding as well? Not necessarily. In some other case, someone besides the governor could come along who has standing to sue. Someone who suffers some actual harm by the referendum not going into effect. That cannot happen in this case because there is no possible injury to anyone from the existence of same-sex marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/57 "2013-06-27T23:24:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The governor did not refuse to defend it in court. He refused to appeal the adverse decision. What has that got to do with my statement? > [@Bricker](#): > > If a majority of voters pass a law, and the governor refuses to defend it in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the governor has the power to veto any popularly-passed referendum. Mine is a conditional hypothetical about a potential future referendum. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/58 "2013-06-27T23:24:58Z")
Yeah, the implications seem to scream danger, but ultimately it just reinforced the fact that gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. With other laws, you will have victims. There are no victims in gay marriage, only a bunch of whiny conservatives crying about how they don’t get to use their religion to force their lifestyle onto other people > [@Bricker](#): > > Mine is a conditional hypothetical about a potential future referendum. It won’t happen. Real laws that address a real problem will have real victims. There are none in gay marriage ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/59 "2013-06-27T23:29:24Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Not necessarily. In some other case, someone besides the governor could come along who has standing to sue. Someone who suffers some actual harm by the referendum not going into effect. > > That cannot happen in this case because there is no possible injury to anyone from the existence of same-sex marriages. Sure, in some cases, a particular referendum’s not going into effect might create standing for someone else. But when the subject is more general – say, a referendum that amends the state constitution to limit the terms of state legislators to no more than ten consecutive years. The people pass it, and some aggrieved legislator sues to declare it unconstitutional. The governor fails to appear to defend it, conceding the issues at trial. In such a circumstance, it seems the governor has effective veto power over the popular referendum process. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056/60 "2013-06-27T23:42:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What has that got to do with my statement? It was unclear that you were speaking in the abstract. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-question/661056.md?page=4)