More Proposition 8 Speculation (BUMPED AND UPDATED)
UPDATE: The court has announced they will issue a ruling on Tuesday May 26th.
Time is running out for the California Supreme Court to issue their ruling on Proposition 8. According to the standard rules of the Court they had 90 days from the arguments to issue the decision and since the court only issues rulings on 2 days (Mondays and Thursdays) they are down to three days.
Tuesday May 26th (because Monday is a holiday). Intent on this ruling would be announced Friday the 22nd.
Thursday May 28th. Intent on this ruling would be announced Wednesday the 27th.
Tuesday June 2nd. Intent on this ruling would be announced on Friday the 29th.
Informed sources suggest the ruling might be issued on Tuesday, which would give everyone an extra day to prepare for the reaction. I have previously offered thoughts on how the court might rule but thought I’d get a little more specific on names.
Two justices I expect to vote to uphold Proposition 8 are Justices Baxter and Chin. Both of them are conservatives who voted against legalizing same sex marriage and they gave no reason to suggest that they would change their minds during the arguments on 8. The closest either came was when Chin speculated on getting rid of the term marriage altogether to make both same and opposite sex marriages civil unions. But that is not much to hang your cap on so I assume two No votes there.
(Note: For purposes of this discussion a No vote is to reject the challenge to Prop 8 and keep it in place while a Yes vote is to accept the challenge and strike 8 down.)
By the same token, Justices Moreno and Werdegar were both strong supporters of the right to marriage in the original case and neither has suggested they changed their mind. In theory Moreno could be swayed by the fact he is, in theory, a candidate for the Souter seat in Washington but I don’t think he would change his mind on this issue (indeed shifting could hurt his chances, which are minimal at best).
So that gives us 2 Yes votes (to strike down 8).
Justice Corrigan was the third vote against recognizing the right to same sex marriage in the original case so I am going to assume she will remain with Chin and Baxter. Some court watchers speculated that her tone and the questions she asked during oral arguments on 8 might hint at a shift in position but I do not buy it.
If you look at her writing in the original ruling she seems to be very sympathetic to the cause personally but also a strong advocate of the view that the voter rules and thus she is probably a No vote. On the other hand *if* she decides that the original ruling did grant a fundamental right, even if she disagrees with that right, then she would slip to the Yes side. But I’m gonna put her down as a No.
So the ruling comes down to the two remaining votes that supported recognizing same sex marriage rights in the original ruling. Both Justice Kennard and Chief Justice George are the question marks in that they voted for the right to marriage but also seemed to be sympathetic to the idea that the will of the voters is important.
Remember that the original ruling was based on what was contained in the California Constitution at the time and the ruling basically said ‘even if you don’t like this we have to honor what is in the document’. If they conclude that the same standard applies here, one or both could vote to uphold 8 which would give the No side a win.
On the other hand they both seemed very focused on the issue that marriage is a fundamental right under the California Constitution and that could compel them to support the revision vs amendment argument which would keep them firmly in the Yes camp.
So I think basically we have two firm No Votes, 2 firm Yes votes and two where I am not sure. My guess is we’ll see Corrigan vote No and George and Kennard split, which would give the No camp a 4-3 victory and Proposition 8 would stand. Next most likely is an exact repeat of the last ruling with a 4-3 decision for the Yes camp to strike down Proposition 8.
But it could go 5-2 in favor of upholding 8 if both Kennard and George shift over or a 5-2 ruling in favor of striking it down should Corrigan shift.
If they strike down Proposition 8 on the revision theory then the issue is basically dead while a decision to uphold it would likely lead to initiatives every few years.
75 Responses to “More Proposition 8 Speculation (BUMPED AND UPDATED)”
Sil, I'm not even sure how to proceed and try having an honest discussion with you about this. You completely ignored George's rebuttal of your claim to H-U-N-D-R-E-D-S of studies. That is just simply not true and your continued adherence to these absurd claims is dishonest at best. Twice now I've asked you to consider studies in the other direction, you know, the ones that build upon the conclusions known at the time. Yet you conveniently say nothing about any of them, as if they were never done. No, you've found one study that you agree with, and you seem to show no willingness at all to even bother considering any other work.
Why do you disagree with the APA? And what expertise do you have that should make any of us take you seriously when you question them? What evidence are you looking at that they haven't? I'd be willing to bet that the Pfaus study you hold dear is known inside and out by the folks at the APA.
It is quite clear, at least to me, that your mind is already made up, and there isn't anything out there to make you think otherwise. As I said before, I'd be interested in getting your take on those 84 studies that cite the same one you always do. Do they all agree with you? Or do they make some points that should be considered?
Either way on how they rule Prop 8 is not gonna stay long, You forget Prop 8 could be repealed by 2010,l either primary or general election in 2010.
You're splitting hairs jchem to favor your side. That's the essence really. The study by Pfaus et al shows definitively that sexual preference “behavior” is learned after birth and shows susceptibility to environmental influence on object-gratification-selection. The hundreds of studies citied in the references are those in the field of comparative psychology, or on the peripheral and lend support to Pfaus et al's findings. The point is put by you that only two reference human studies. You're not getting what comparative psychology is about apparently.
*********
Who Should Study Comparative Psychology?
The study of animal behavior can lead to a deeper and broader understanding of human psychology. Research on animal behavior has led to numerous discoveries about human behavior, such as Ivan Pavlov's research on classical conditioning or Harry Harlow's work with rhesus monkeys. Students of biological sciences and social sciences can benefit from studying comparative psychology.
Important People in the History of Comparative Psychology
Charles Darwin
George Romanes
C. Lloyd Morgan
Ivan Pavlov
Edward Thorndike
B.F. Skinner
Konrad Lorenz
[among hundreds of others]
http://psychology.about.com/od/comparativepsych…
**********
The idea is that you e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-e the findings across mulitiple species and compare them to each other and to human behavior to show a common thread. From the number of species from the hundreds of references studies[not all mammal, but most] that exhibit the learned sexual preference, we EXTRAPOLATE that human mammals are not exempt. So if you have say four dozen types of mammals [especially mammals, particularly primates and rats, who are our closest animal "cousins"] and even birds or other fauna that all show a learned preference sexually, that also shows susceptiblity to environmental influences…you EXTRAPOLATE that humans are not immune to this trait.
Maybe you cannot declare without a shadow of a doubt that they apply to humans; but only a fool would take overwhelming findings such as those and definitively state that they do not. In fact, where the majority rules, the findings “declare” that sexual preference in humans most likely is learned, like in other animals besides homo sapiens, and that it is susceptible to environmental influences..
Ergo..*drum roll*
Normalizing fetish behavior such as homosexuality via marriage, in a given society [environment], you can expect, and indeed SHOULD expect an increase in same-gendered selection in subsequent generations in a given population, based on what is the new “normal” for said population.
Keeping homosexuality in the category of a deviant fetish, where it properly belongs, does not eradicate homosexuality. What it does instead is keep it away from the “influence” category of normal human social behaviors. Homosexuals who factually play at being butch and fem anyway, are indeed trying to mimic what they must innately believe is normal. If they cannot access or manifest this normalcy due to some associative conditioning crosswiring [and my heart does go out to molestation victims totally], they shouldn't be hated, or shoved out. Instead every effort should go to educating people about the learned aspects of sexuality and how important it is to sequester formative adolescents from fetish intrusion. Of course it won't be 100% effective. Nothing ever is. But that doesn't mean we should simply stop striving to reach the ideal.
Civil unions are the perfect solution to homosexuality and other fetishes because the deviant-sexuals are right, after a certain point, classical conditioning is very difficult to revert, if not impossible. This is where the christians are dead-wrong. So thus affected, deviants can still live together in their chosen mock-hetero relationships, enjoying the benefits of survivorship, hospital visits and so on and not be either persecuted for their issues nor be denied living with their butch or fem “counterpart”.
OMG!!
Silhouette, a little ways up this thread, I rebutted your claims.
Here's part of it:
I don't have any interest in insulting you. But your claim to science doesn't withstand scrutiny. Your suggestion that marriage will normalize behavior but civil unions will not is illogical. And your analogy to women's locker rooms is just plain goofy.
Also, your complaint that it's Jchem who's splitting hairs to favor his side shows an immunity to irony.
I would like to conclude this comment by saying that I know and respect a number of gay people.
And I don't care how they got that way.
Sil, It's seem to me you're other sexual repressed person or someone deeply insecure with himself that you need to look down gays just make yourself feel better, Why take your own advice and see a psychiatrist and talk about how Daddy never hugged you.
@ sil-
Speaking as a graduate in sociology, I believe the problem you have here is your belief that what society has deemed as “normal,” is normal. there is no such thing as normal. as you yourself have clearly pointed out, when it comes to human sexuality, there is a great deal (not 100%, but a large portion) of social conditioning which makes us who were are (humans are generally thought to be around 30% biological, 70% social). It is this very truth which then leads us to realize that there is NO INHERENT masculine/feminine order in humans. Gender roles are 100% learned, and FOR HUMANS, our X/Y chromosome and/or sex organs have NO bearing on what we consider gender. That's not to say that females on average behave a little differently than males, on average, but that these are far and away from what we assume to be “normal” based on what society teaches us. We also have an emerging idea behind genetic/hormonal sexuality and it's links to learned and demonstrated behaviors in that sexuality is not one or another, but placed on a sliding scale. in this case, a scale of 1-10, in which 1 is purely heterosexual and 10 is purely homosexual (both extremes of which would be sociopathic), most people fall between 3-8. For those who are biologically 1-6, adapting to established “societal norms” of heterosexuality easy, while those in the 7-10 range will have increasing trouble with it.
furthermore, your warning of what will happen if we allow or the normalization of “fetish” behavior carries no weight as we have no reason to believe there to be negative consequences from these. It is easy to see how homosexuality WAS a social threat in the past, where is was one's social duty to reproduce for the good of the community as war, environment, and disease decimated the population. However, our idea of marriage has shifted since then, away from reproduction and towards establishing kinship based on “love.” even more prudent would be the fact that we as a species are at this point vastly over populated, and as such have little or no reason to shame people into forming child producing pairings. If anything, it would do some GOOD to allow more people not to reproduce, and to promote the adoption of children who are otherwise unsatisfactorily cared for. Hell, biologically speaking humans aren't “programmed” to pair off for more than about 5-6 years.
Finally, what does it matter WHY someone is the way they are so long as they are not hurting others in the process? what matters is that they should be treated with the respect they deserve as humans, and as United States citizens. As Americans, our utmost ideals should be to establish liberty, equality, and justice, and that is what allowing homosexual couples to marry would be doing, and is exactly what prop 8 is about.
@Sil,
I see you continue to tilt at windmills while twisting yourself in to a pretzel. Keep it up Sil, I can't think of a better spokesperson here at TMV for hate and fear mongering on this issue than you.
George, you make a very strong point here, but I doubt that you will get any response. I, like you, have no interest insulting anybody. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who is willing to seriously examine an issue and comment on it.
Sil, I give up. Until you are willing to discuss any of those 84 studies that build upon the one you cite, I cannot have a conversation. You can call it splitting hairs all you want to. I call it science.
I will second George by concluding that I know, respect, and work with several folks who are gay. And I don't care how they got that way. They are some of the best friends and colleagues I've had the pleasure to get to know. And you know what? They aren't trying to convert me. They are people, no better or worse than me or anyone else trying to figure this world.
I think Sil another self-loathing closet homosexual.
Ryukage99, we don't want her.
Jchem and GeorgeSorwell, thanks for sparring with Sil, I really don't have the energy for it anymore. I found your arguments very enlightening compared to Sil's which is why I wanted her to continue.
I though Sil, was a guy. In that Sil, is probably some brainwashed X-tain.
GD – haven't seen your name on the threads I have visited lately, and not sure you read something I directed towards you on one of them.
So, I am writing to you from this thread to make sure you do read it.
The other day you made a post about the military and those who would currently join and serve. Despite the true, deep anger I still feel at you for those smears at our servicemen and servicewoman, and by association my daughter, I admit I stepped over the line in my response to you, and apologize, unconditionally, to you and the board in general for expressing in an inappropriate way that which I should have just kept to myself.
Wow, folks. I think we all could use a lesson on the care and feeding of internet trolls. Sil is getting way too much feeding.
Is “troll” an insult? I don't know what anyone else is thinking, but I'm imagining a trolling motor on a small boat. Plain and simple.
On this topic, the law blogs I have been reading are fairly consistent in expecting them to uphold the vote, but not disallow those marriages performed prior.
We will see.
As I've said in my posting, I sadly agree with the consensus but hope I am wrong
To clarify if it matters:
1. I am not a man
2. I am not christian, nor do I follow any religion at all
3. I take offense at being called, “homophobe”, “closet gay”, “ignorant”, “troll” etc. simply for having opinions that differ from the pro-gay agenda. If I, for instance, called people “faggot” “stupid” “ignorant” and so on for being pro-gay, I feel certain I would've been banned by now. Why the perferential treatment for some on this issue and not others?
Think about it.
I'm certain that if you 100% bought into the “gays are born that way and therefore are belonging to some intrinsic minority group that is being descriminated agains” belief structure, I can empathize with how what I've been debating would strike you at your core. That being said, it is equally a visceral reaction to those who were raised 100% that gays aren't born that way, that it is an acquired behavioral issue and therefore not a true “minority group” [defined loosely as "GLBT"...but not other forms of sexual deviances such as other fetishes or polygamists]
So we are at an empasse. But because we each have such differing viewpoints on the matter doesn't mean one side of the debate can use ad hominems to attempt to shut down the opposing viewpoint.
I'd like to see that stop actually. Nowhere have I said that I believe pro-gays should not weigh in on the subject, should be ignored, ridiculed or banned. Yet countless times this blatant intolerance has been heaped in my direction.
Think about it. And speaking of intolerance, many times the pro-gay crowd are the first to jump against the idea of polygamists gaining equal rights as they are seeking. There is one simple reason with this: it interferes with their agenda because if they now reach out to and embrace the idea of polyamist marriage, they will be de facto admitting to the slippery slope argument as valid. And hence the reason they are quick to shut out polygamy in the inclusion.
Now, who is and who isn't being fair and honest?
Think about it…
Silhouette, you're calling people “deviant,” so you have little basis to complain that people are calling you a homophobe.
They do have some evidence. Your posts betray a good bit of fear that we'll slide down a sliippery slope. You're afraid of polygamy becoming legal–I'm not sure why. You're afraid of everyone becoming gay, a rather far-fetched notion, and certainly not one any of your studies support. You're conjuring monsters under the bed. “Homophobia” seems a pretty solid diagnosis.
Sil, how a minority characteristic is acquired is a moot point. Americans generally agree that religious affiliation is a protected class, and I don't know of a Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or Muslim “gene.” And, it may be true that by protecting Catholics, one allows for more Catholics in the future. So what?
Silhouette–
As Dr J pointed out, you've certainly done your share of name-calling.
I have no desire to call you any names. I have no desire to characterize your state of mind. I'd just like to say that I know and respect a number of gay people.
And I don't care how they got that way.
No, calling homosexuals “deviant” is not name-calling. They do, in fact, deviate from the purpose of sexual reproduction.
I'm using the english language to describe what it is they do: deviate.
Of course it's name-calling. The word has a pejorative connotation that's unnecessary unless you mean to provoke. I'm sure you already knew that, since you miss no opportunity to use the word.
Honestly, do the rest of us really come across as that stupid? I'm more offended by the flimsy linguistic defense you're expecting I'll swallow than I am by being called deviant.
Since when is it an insult to be referred to as a slow (but useful) outboard motor? I'm just using the English language to describe what silhouette is doing: slowly but purposefully hanging around, moving slowly, but clearly fishing. In this case, she is fishing in areas where she can post something to further her own deviant agenda. The use of deviant in this case is purposeful: her agenda deviates from that of the American Psychological Association.
i like how sil didn't bother to respond to my post. case won?
Drew Barrymore joined thousands of protestors in West Hollywood over the weekend to march against Proposition 8 …
Yup you are right…As far as animal science goes, you've been called out on that so many times that unless you can provide any further evidence to support your position, you have a weak argument. I think you should relax a bit…