LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Drolyt]

I don't mean to be a downer, but there is a very high chance that this ruling could be overturned. Fact is the basis for overturning the law (a very liberal reading of the 14th amendment) probably won't fly in the supreme court.

[Kara Kuro]

I don't mean to be a downer, but there is a very high chance that this ruling could be overturned. Fact is the basis for overturning the law (a very liberal reading of the 14th amendment) probably won't fly in the supreme court.

Either way, its better than the alternative. I'm going to count it as progress and watch as things continue. I'll play the hopeful game for now.

[JonestheSpy]

I don't mean to be a downer, but there is a very high chance that this ruling could be overturned. Fact is the basis for overturning the law (a very liberal reading of the 14th amendment) probably won't fly in the supreme court.

Have you actually read the ruling? The anti-marriage side had no, and I mean NO credible arguments. Seriously, read the ruling I linked to.

I say all this purely as a cultural/sociological observation that has no relation to politics, of course.

[Drolyt]

Have you actually read the ruling?

Only part of it, but even if it is a stronger case than I'm understanding that doesn't change the fact that this ruling isn't final. Appeals can and will be made.

[RS14]

On second thought, I've got enough infractions, and I'm feeling nervous. No need to spoil good news by getting myself in trouble.

[JonestheSpy]

Only part of it, but even if it is a stronger case than I'm understanding that doesn't change the fact that this ruling isn't final. Appeals can and will be made.

Yes, of course it will be appealed. I merely point out that your statement regarding the basis of the ruling is completely inaccurate.

[Coidzor]

Either way, its better than the alternative. I'm going to count it as progress and watch as things continue. I'll play the hopeful game for now.

You weren't already? Victory on this count was inevitable as long as no one messed up enough that pogroms started happening without any kind of government reprisal. Is a morale game they're playing right now, and as long as the populace doesn't settle for, "eh, good enough, I'm tired..."

Progress marches on, and all that jazz.

[Drolyt]

Yes, of course it will be appealed. I merely point out that your statement regarding the basis of the ruling is completely inaccurate.

Care to clarify it for me then?

[Pyrian]

What is interesting to me, in reading the ruling, is the lack of preparation on the part of Prop 8 proponents.

The nominal defendant is the state, which refuses to defend the proposition at all. That leaves activist groups, which are largely biding for appeal, and perhaps setting their sights primarily on the Supreme Court itself, which I expect would be much more receptive to their arguments.

[Drolyt]

The nominal defendant is the state, which refuses to defend the proposition at all. That leaves activist groups, which are largely biding for appeal, and perhaps setting their sights primarily on the Supreme Court itself, which I expect would be much more receptive to their arguments.

Typically the Supreme Court is far more conservative than lower courts, only very rarely overturning any laws. It might make sense for the activists to focus their efforts there.

[JonestheSpy]

I don't think it's too political to point out that the current Supreme Court has been quite enthusiastic about overturning laws. Not saying anything positive or negative about it, just stating a fact. Not that will necessarily help either side in this instance.

Care to clarify it for me then?

Again, try reading the ruling, it's very clear. But to summarize: the case focused on whether it was in the interest of the state to differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and whether the anti-marriage proposition was enacting a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest. The trial demonstrated that the plaintiffs were harmed by not being allowed to marry, and that there was no legitimate reason to justify that discrimination. To quote the judge's final statement:

‎"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay
men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence
shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California
Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to
same-sex couples."

[Kara Kuro]

It'll certainly be interesting to see what will happen in the higher courts - because the case is definitely headed there (although exactly how high remains to be seen).

Either way, I'm celebrating this victory. My room mate and I are making apple cake tonight :D

[Drolyt]

I don't think it's too political to point out that the current Supreme Court has been quite enthusiastic about overturning laws. Not saying anything positive or negative about it, just stating a fact. Not that will necessarily help either side in this instance.



Again, try reading the ruling, it's very clear. But to summarize: the case focused on whether it was in the interest of the state to differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and whether the anti-marriage proposition was enacting a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest. The trial demonstrated that the plaintiffs were harmed by not being allowed to marry, and that there was no legitimate reason to justify that discrimination. To quote the judge's final statement:

‎"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay
men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence
shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California
Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to
same-sex couples."

What? I must be missing something here, I'm all for overturning the law by legal means, but a federal district court has no right to overturn a state law because they don't think it serves a legitimate government interest. Unless it can be shown to be unconstitutional the federal government cannot overturn state laws.

[Danne]

I've actually been hoping for it to get taken to the Supreme Court. I know higher level courts tend to be more conservative, but the country (in general, clearly not all of it) seems to be growing more accepting, or at least more tolerant. I could be wrong, but I figure no matter what happens, we'll either win or things will stay the same. I highly doubt that they'd rule that it'd be unconstitutional; the worst they can really do is say that it's a matter for states to decide*, which means we're no worse off than we are now.

Also, they recently ruled in favor of gay rights (upholding a college's refusal to grant financial aid to an organization that discriminated against gay students), which I'd say is a good sign.

*Hm, this sounds familiar...

[Pyrian]

I must be missing something here...

Equal protection under the law. Singling out a group of people is by default unconstitutional, unless a compelling interest can be proven.

[Drolyt]

Equal protection under the law. Singling out a group of people is by default unconstitutional, unless a compelling interest can be proven.

Ah yes, that's what I meant by 14th amendment (not sure why that guy disagreed with me then). I'm still not convinced it will fly in the supreme court, but let's hope it does.

[Jacklu]

Erm... It's me, That Guy again. While the overturning of Prop 8 is pertinent, this conversation seems to be well past drifting into real world politics. Erm... Perhaps it ought to stop before a mod is needed to clean it all up. Kthanxbai.

[JonestheSpy]

What? I must be missing something here, I'm all for overturning the law by legal means, but a federal district court has no right to overturn a state law because they don't think it serves a legitimate government interest. Unless it can be shown to be unconstitutional the federal government cannot overturn state laws.

Okay, I will try to explain just for the sake of clarity, being factual without expressing political opinion.

The proponents of Prop 8 attempted to argue that defining marriage as being only a man and a woman was in the interest of the state, because they knew that claiming the majority is allowed to pass laws that specifically discriminate against minorities just because they want to is a very, very weak argument -the 14th amendment specifically prohibits those kind of laws. The anti-8 plaintiffs presented evidence saying that not being able to marry was discriminatory and inflicts harm on gay couples, and that there was no legitimate reason that it would be in the state's interest to discriminate.

The judge found that the pro-8 side's arguments had no merit, and that there was no legitimate reason to allow a law who's only function was to discriminate against a group of people.

That is a brief synopsis, purely descriptive, hopefully not going over the line.

edit: What I initially disagreed with was Drolyt's assertion that the ruling was only based on "a very liberal reading of the 14th amendment."

[Drolyt]

Okay, I will try to explain just for the sake of clarity, being factual without expressing political opinion.

The proponents of Prop 8 attempted to argue that defining marriage as being only a man and a woman was in the interest of the state, because they knew that claiming the majority is allowed to pass laws that specifically discriminate against minorities just because they want to is a very, very weak argument -the 14th amendment specifically prohibits those kind of laws. The anti-8 plaintiffs presented evidence saying that not being able to marry was discriminatory and inflicts harm on gay couples, and that there was no legitimate reason that it would be in the state's interest to discriminate.

The judge found that the pro-8 side's arguments had no merit, and that there was no legitimate reason to allow a law who's only function was to discriminate against a group of people.

That is a brief synopsis, purely descriptive, hopefully not going over the line.

Actually the 14th amendment only forbids denying any citizens of their rights. At any rate I say we drop the discussion, it could too easily lead to flame in a forum that is supposed to be for support.

[JonestheSpy]

Actually the 14th amendment only forbids denying any citizens of their rights.

Okay, I know we're on thin ice here, but I really really can't let someone have the last word when said word is factually incorrect. I hope it's not going too far to merely point out the fact that the 14th Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause. I make no interpretation of it or claim that it means X, Y, or Z, but it does exist.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There, I'm done, promise.

[Kneenibble]

I really think your best bet is to iust move to Canada and frolick and prance with your life partner in the snow.

[Kara Kuro]

I really think your best bet is to iust move to Canada and frolick and prance with your life partner in the snow.

Ha. Indeed.
Although on a serious note I do know that a few friends of mine have gone to Canada to have preemptive ceremonies, at least those who live in states that haven't yet come to their senses.

I don't know whether snow frolicking and/or prancing occured. I can only hope and assume that it did.

[Drolyt]

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Right, what I said, although I paraphrased. I'll give that my paraphrase could be misconstrued, but I thought summing up the above as "forbids the states denying anyone their rights" was more or less on target.

[Pyrian]

...I thought summing up the above as "forbids the states denying anyone their rights" was more or less on target.

To me, it doesn't come across as being the same thing at all. Generally speaking, rights apply to everybody, minority or otherwise. But equal protection goes far beyond that, and means that you can't single out minorities in ANY way, regardless of whether it applies to a "right". For example, you can't pass a law saying that gays pay +1% taxes, even where you could pass a law saying that everyone pays +1% taxes.

[JonestheSpy]

Bingo. Was his name-O

[Drolyt]

Hmm, I guess I see where you guys are coming from then.

[Quincunx]

Phew. Delicately handled all around in this thread, and explains the 'change' of jurisdiction and what-not to the satisfaction of someone whose U.S. Government class was way too early in the morning for fact retention.

. . .ok, there's one piece of judicial-ese (is it still legal-ese if it didn't come from the lawyer? ) I'm going to request clarification of, but in PM form.

[Danne]

I really think your best bet is to iust move to Canada and frolick and prance with your life partner in the snow.

That sounds like fun. We never get enough snow where I am. Half a foot is considered a big storm here. *grimace* Need more snow!

[Kara Kuro]

That sounds like fun. We never get enough snow where I am. Half a foot is considered a big storm here. *grimace* Need more snow!

We had snow storms in may this past year (in central Wisconsin), but then again, by friend can't yet marry his boyfriend in said state. Closest location to us is now Iowa.

[Lix Lorn]

That sounds like fun. We never get enough snow where I am. Half a foot is considered a big storm here. *grimace* Need more snow!

We got two inches earlier this year. It was the most i'd seen in my entire life.

I win.