Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 15, 2009 in At TMV, Politics, Society | 34 comments

Some Speculation On Proposition 8

Between now and June 1st the California Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the legality of Proposition 8. For those who may have been living in a hole for the last few months, Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to overturn a prior ruling and make same sex marriage illegal.

Opponents to the law have challenged it on the ground that it is a revision (IE a major change to the Constitution) and thus required legislative approval. As I previously discussed, while I was strongly opposed to the initiative, I felt that the hearings seemed to favor those who supported it.

I still suspect that this is true but in recent days I have begun to speculate over what course the justices might be taking as they come to a decision. One of the issues to consider is to what degree their decision will rest on the law and to what degree it will rest on other factors.

I know that some of you are already thinking that the courts are not supposed to consider anything but the law in their decisions, but we all know that is not the way things work. A judge is human and cannot help but to ponder the impact of his ruling on the population. Indeed during the 1950’s and 1960’s the US Supreme Court took great care to consider the impact of their rulings on Civil Rights issues

Of course depending on which outside factors they bring in it could help or hurt the cause of the Proposition. As I’ve said, if they base the ruling entirely on the law I think Proposition 8 would be struck down. The law is clearly a revision of a major right (whether you agreed with the Supreme Court ruling or not, it did grant a fundamental right to same sex couples).

So how might outside factors play in to the ruling ?

Well to begin with I think  you probably have a couple Justices who, for a variety of reasons both legal and personal, are locked in to voting to uphold the Proposition and a couple more who are locked into voting to strike it down. The key is therefore the 3 swing justices, two of whom voted for same sex marriage and one who voted against in the previous case.

There are two possible ways outside factors could impact the justices. The first is if one of those who voted in favor of same sex marriage becomes concerned about being re-elected the next time they are on the ballot. This could push them towards upholding the Proposition.

On the other hand, if they do uphold 8 it will simply mean another initiative on the ballot in 2010 or 2012. If they strike it down, then the issue is basically over because it would require the state legislature to act to place another initiative on the ballot.

 That is unlikely to happen so it would basically end the process. This could influence a justice who was leaning towards supporting 8 to decide it was better to end this issue from going back and forth every two years.

Obviously there are many other factors at play and I certainly do think it is possible one of the Justices who ruled in favor of same sex marriage last time could decide that this was a proper change to the Constitution and uphold the law.

Again, I expect that 8 will be upheld, but I would not be shocked if it was struck down.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • fern501

    What I said in the first place right after the hearing. My feeling was that most of the Justices were in favor of the no on 8. If there was a three to four split it could well have been based on differences in the perception of the law (philosophy of law, history of law) we’ll never know. Also what they said like the wording of prop8 was foggy which lead Starr to mention the problems of the drafters, then the end when Starr offered more argumentation and “no that will not be necessary” sounded to me like ” we had enough of your BS for the day”.
    Then the human factor and you can say that again, their seats weren’t cold that prop8 was rolling this was a slap in the face of all Justicesand the success of prop8 was like spitting in their eye.
    The Justices didn’t want to wait for election day to enforce their decision Why?
    18,000 weddings to further complicate matter for prop8 and for the State that is why.
    Also who could predict the success of prop8?
    A judge has to consider the human factor and its implications in a judgment.
    At the end of the hearing I was sure the entire court was going to do its utmost to strike down or waylay prop8, their problems are the technicalities of law.

  • Silhouette

    I assume the Justices are also aware of setting precidents. When polygamists step up to the plate next, they’re going to face the whole thing all over again with a new twist. They cannot deny polygamists’ pleas if the precident is set by the definition “two consenting adults in love”. The number “two” will be found to be arbitrary.

    Their attorneys are working out the details as I write this. So CA not only has to consider the impact of allowing a minority deviant faction into marriage in the gay respect, but also then other manifestations of “consenting adults in love”.

    Face it the term GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] covers a wide spectrum. Arguments that attempt to shut out polygamists based on their idea of marriage being a perversion of the new one that will usher in if Prop 8 is shut down will be…farcical at best.

    The approval of gay marriage is, de facto, also the approval of polygamy…minus some brief litigation time..

    • btsnyder

      Ever notice how the most ignorant are always the worst spellers? Why is that?

    • zedfallex

      Silhouette; let’s assume you’re actually serious, which certainly takes a lot of willpower.

      Why is loving someone of the same sex in any way equivalent to wanting to enter into a marriage with more than one person?

      Let me put it in terms a kindergartner can understand. There are two apples and two oranges on the table. How are two oranges in a group or two apples in a group similar to a pile of all four in a group? Aren’t polygamist marriages more similar to an extended heterosexual marriage where there is one dominant male and a number of oppressed females? I should think most polygamists oppose gay marriage since they’re usually crazy fundamentalists. On the other hand, I should think most homosexuals oppose polygamy since it is an unequal relationship, quite unlike gay marriage which is often more equal than heterosexual marriage due to a lack of the sexist attitudes and stereotypical gender-roles common in many heterosexual marriages.

    • KEWilson

      I must ask how demented you must be to jump from the conclusion that allowing me to marry another woman would have anything to do with Polygamy. Really; the only arguments for Prop 8 were religion-based, and/or centered completely on misunderstanding and fear. It’s truly pathetic that people believe that two people having the fundamental right to marry would affect them. If you don’t like it, Fine, but What if I said I didn’t like the fact that a jewish person would be able to marry? it’s the same thing, at it’s core; You are persecuting a select few who have no control over what they are.

  • Silhouette

    The question was is there a legal reason Prop 8 should be upheld. The answer is “yes”, to avoid setting precident for a group the GLBT community doesn’t want to talk about much: the polygamists…

    Whenever I hear a gay-proponent attempt to shoot down polygamists’ desires to marry alongside them I nearly fall off my chair laughing with the idea of blind justice firmly in view…lol… Their only argument is that somehow the number “two” should be preserved as “sacred”…lol…LOL…!

    The emperor has no clothes. There, I said it.

    • EqualityChristian

      Silhouette is another misguided “Believer”,”Christian”, or just another Fool!

      Very tricky and deceptive you are Silhouette. If I recall, the Devil himself is so tricky that he was able to get Eve to bite into the fruit. It is obvious that you have a hidden agenda. Your wording is very precise, but incorrect.
      I have been a follower of Christ for more than 15 years now. I am happily married ( to a woman) with 2 children and another on the way. I am very familiar with the Bible, and studied it in College. I go to church every Sunday with my family, and volunteer on certain weekdays for my adult Bible study group. I know many Christians who nodded their heads when others would say that gay marriage is wrong, and that a “yes” vote on 8 was what God wanted. I also know that those people went into the booth and voted “no” on prop 8. I really don’t care what you say or what you do with your life. I would hope that many would follow Christ, but if they do not, then that is their choice. This has nothing to do with religion. We do what we want in our churches and when we get together with other believers. The fact that some don’t believe is fine. All that I know is that one day we all will face our creator, and who am I to take away what God himself did not take away from people when Eve took that very first bite from the fruit of the tree of life? I am not better than God and neither are you! God gave every person free will, and to live as they choose on this planet. Why can’t you afford a minority group that same right? I just don’t get it.
      If a minority group is trampled on and their right’s are taken away, then it is the courts obligation to make it right. I fear that even the justices might not be able to do what is right because of the disgusting threats that have been thrown at them by the prop 8 side. I do hope you know that many prop 8 supporters are people that have no faith, that abuse their children, that lie, cheat and steal, but can only stand for an issue because that is all they have. Almost like a bully. They feel that they have to fight for this and really have no backbone, or the ability to look at themselves and see how unhappy they are. I pray for those people everyday.
      I do not have any gay relatives, nor any close gay friends, but I still believe in this because it is right, and it is what God, and Christ would preach.
      As for the polygamy issue, I have heard it before, and if that’s all that you have, then your argument is weak. If I recall, that was the same argument used for allowing interracial couples to marry awhile ago. You claim to be a person of faith and to be fair minded. I just hope you get on the right path. You are misguided and I am embarrassed that you call yourself a believer.
      I only feel saddened for the GLBT community that will have to wait until 2010 to be treated equally.
      The Bible, as well as Christ himself, warns and tells us to watch out for people like you. You remind me of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Remember Satan is the biggest deceiver of them all. Be careful what you believe. Peace be with you!

  • valit

    Silhouette, it’s a good point, but don’t you think that regulating something like the union of any number of people cannot be done within an institution like marriage? People suggest this because they have the idea of a man having multiple wives but the law would never allow such a sexist institution exclusively, it has to allow any number of men to marry any number of women. Are they all going to be married together or is every person individually going to be married to x people who might never have met each other? It just sounds to me like it is a brand new institution.

    What if there are people who want to set a record just for the sake of it. 20, 30, 50, 100 people… a whole town… the line always has to be drawn somewhere and the place where that is done is always going to seem arbitrary to some people.

    I think that preventing a committed couple to marry based on the genital organs they bring to the union because allegedly this would be open the door to the sort of institution I have described above is a shaky argument. I don’t mean to sound hypocritical. I don’t have anything against plural marriage per se, I just think that a modern day implementation of it is not going to be the same as a 2-person marriage.

  • Silhouette

    For that matter, “marriage” is a whole new institution to those previously covered by Civil unions..

    If we are going to radically redefine the description of “as between one man and one woman”, why is “one…and…one” so sacred where the rest is not?

    Numbers will be found to be arbitrary when the real qualifier “not to descriminate against consenting adults in love” is going to be found to be the meat of the overturning, the precident.

    And you know it.. ; )

    Yes, polygamy, polyandry, whatever…multiple consenting adults who want the rights to live together as married families… They will have their day in court and I for one would not want to be the attorney opposing their arguments..for it would be a career-wrecker to be so wholly shot down in my chosen field of expertise: legal debate before a jury/judge/panel.

    The door will be open to multiples once “between ..man…and…woman” is gutted. Why can part of it be declared unconstitutional and the other not? The number “two” will be as arbitrary as a mandatory heterosexual union once deviant get their “rights”..

  • shannonlee

    Looks like Sil has connected the same dots that I have on this issue. Why not 10 on 10 marriage? Sil is completely correct. You can’t logically support gay marriage and be against polygamy.

    I support gay marriage…and I support any number of people that want to get married. Why not? There is nothing sacred about a legal marriage. Leave the spirtuality to the church.

    My opinion is that the two should be completely different events.

    • tech33

      “and I support any number of people that want to get married. Why not? ”

      Because you know, people have sex to actually procreate, outside it’s entertainment value. And a multiple people marriage is horrible for the children. Look at the polygamists in Texas.

    • Vitabuono

      “You can’t logically support gay marriage and be against polygamy.”

      What? Did someone actually use the word logic in relationship to this statement? Sure you can. Unless you have a radical, right-wing, agenda. Go live in Iran for Mohammed’s sake.

  • derrickrussell

    Silhouette,

    You’re clearly expressing scared logic. To compare granting the rights of two individuals (whether it be man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman) with granting the rights of an individual to marry multiple partners is moronic at best.

    Polygamous relationships almost always take the form of patriarchal systems in which the women are treated as mere broodmares. Polygamous relationships almost always occur within the context of right-wing religious enclaves, in which women are robbed of genuine choice and are all but forced into the polygamous “family” structure. To argue that a system that denies women such basic rights as self-determination is “better” or “equal” than gay marriage reflects, at best, a profound disconnect between the thought processes of those who make this argument, and reality.

    More power to those gay persons who seek to marry.

  • Silhouette

    No, I’m not expressing scared logic, nor will the johnny-come-lately GOP spindoctors attempts to link my “illogic” here to the thread on Pelosi be successful.

    Study legal precident. Meanwhile read this from “Political Polygamists Coming Out Of The Closet” http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy49.html
    ********
    “In a moment, Wilde will walk into a legislative committee room. She won’t speak, but she will stand, jaw set firm, before roughly 40 Republican lawmakers who offer only awkward smiles to the announcement of her forthcoming book, Voices in Harmony: Contemporary Women Celebrate Plural Marriage.

    This woman — who was married in the Los Angeles LDS Temple and later sealed in a polygamous marriage — will turn, walk out of the room and exhale.

    Not often does a Utah polygamist stroll sure-footed into the halls of state government. But on this November day, Wilde is not alone. She comes with a handful of polygamous husbands and wives wielding a book and a hope that activism and openness can alter the course of political history in Utah.

    “Polygamists are here and we are not going away,” Wilde’s co-author, Mary Batchelor, told The Salt Lake Tribune. “This is about breaking stereotypes.”

    Wilde, Batchelor and co-author Marianne Watson accept comparisons to other civil objectors. They understand the plight of gays and lesbians whose protest call — “We’re queer and we’re here” — in a way echoes their own.”
    ********

    If the meaning of “between one man and one woman” is dismantled via the hinge of “as not to descriminate between consenting adults in love”, then all facets of that clause, including the numbers “one…and…one” are subject to dismantling. Any attempts to preserve “between one…and …one.” will be as arbitrary as “between..man..and …woman.” only.

    Mark my words.

    • telavir

      “This woman — who was married in the Los Angeles LDS Temple and later sealed in a polygamous marriage.”

      That is actually impossible since Polygamous marriages in the LDS church were banned over a century ago. It could be possible if the first wife had died and the man then subsequently remarried.

  • jojo82

    What Silhouete is saying I feel is the truth. I want to make it clear that im a gay man and was one of those 18,000 who were married. But whats hes saying makes perfect sense. How you can agrue against his point well I honestly dont know.

  • teh_gayz

    silhouette, if someone wants to open up the issue of federal rights for plural marriages, that’s their issue. if they succeed, and polygamy is ever federally recognized, it cannot be exclusionary to a particular group. in other words, the government must make the institution of polygamous marriage available to any tax-paying citizen under equal access laws. what gay-rights advocates are saying–and what you don’t seem to be hearing–is that the government cannot discriminate against sexual orientation when it comes to offering a benefit to its citizens. and that’s what this is: SEXUAL ORIENTATION–meaning whether a person is attracted to men, or to women, or to both.

    polygamy is not a sexual orientation, no matter how much you right-wing theocrat bigots like to claim that it is along with pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS ABOUT WHAT SEX A PERSON IS DRAWN TO. you have it. i have it. we all have a sexual orientation. polygamy has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. zilch. with same-sex marriage, the rules of marriage stay exactly the same (must be of a certain age, must be unrelated, must have consent, etc), but the government has no credible reason to deny marriage benefits to anyone because of sexual orientation. we are asking for equal treatment under the law, and nothing more.

    if those of you who are so obsessed with polygamy are personally interested in expanding marriages to multiple people, you have the right to make your case. but keep in mind that you cannot construct rules to include only those who YOU think should participate in it. you cannot say that only christians can participate, or that only men can do it, or that jews, blacks and gays aren’t allowed. if you want to say that felons can’t participate, that’s fine, but you can’t say “black felons”. if you want to say that only people who will make babies can participate in polygamy, that’s fine too, but then you have to make damn sure that they’re actually making babies, including the number and frequency. if they’re not, then they’re not following the rules, are they?

    we’re following the rules. the government has no compelling reason to deny these benefits to us. this is the essence of fairness, and why it continues to elude you is a serious problem that you should have examined.

  • $327499

    Some questions:

    1) Why is polygamy, created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals and outlawed by heterosexuals the suddenly the responsibility of homosexual couples? Seems to me like the LGBT community doesn’t need to talk about it much, since it isn’t their problem to begin with.

    2) If these two items are so tightly linked, how come polygamy has existed as an exclusively heterosexual institution for thousands of years – and still does in some parts of the world, yet not once has it led to an outbreak of same sex marriage? That doesn’t seem like much of a link to me.

  • valit

    Silhouette, what I’m saying is they are different situations and can’t be regulated by the same set of rules. I’ll give you a very simple example. Two people are married, one dies, the other makes arrangement for the dead spouse’s funeral. Next situation: one person with multiple spouses dies, his two wives think he should be buried but 2 of his 3 husbands think he should be cremated. The other husband has a different opinion about funeral arrangements. How can you claim that the 2 cases can be regulated by the same laws? And I don’t even want to start considering the complexity of hereditary laws. There are going to be very extended families, there could be dozens of husbands and dozens of wives, some might potentially not know each other. How can that be regulated by the same laws that regulate a family of 2 parents + x children?
    I repeat what I said: I have nothing against plural marriage but you can’t seriously think that the same rules can apply to a couple made up of 2 people as to a potentially limitless group of people. I think that people make the mistake of assuming that a plural marriage will look like the patriarchal families with one man and multiple wives with the man making the decisions and the wives doing what they are told but things can get more complicated than that.

  • Gabarus

    EqualityChristian : Your words are wise. You remind me of a favorite quote of mine from Susan B. Anthony; “I am always suspicious of those who claim to know so well what God wants, for it always seems to coincide with their own desires.”

  • lllewis

    Prop 8 is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and is also a vioaltion of the 1st with respect to legislating religious issues.

  • Gabarus

    Yeah, here’s hoping it goes down in flames. One other bit of the constitution it rolls over too however, that many folks overlook, and its a shame. The USA is the only land in the world, which has a constitutional right to the “Pursuit of Happiness” guaranteed in the constitution. That is a *very* powerful right. If you were told that you were not allowed to marry the person whom you loved, and whom loved you, would you be able to pursue happiness in your life?

  • apple597

    I don’t see how same-sex marriage has anything to do with polygamy. Marriage from a legal standpoint is about creating a family. Once you are married, you cannot marry again unless you divorce first. It’s that simple. I believe that people who continually bring up the issue of polygamy are just trying to throw in red herrings. People made the same arguments when interracial marriage was up for debate, but legalizing interracial marriage did not legalize polygamy, did it? To illustrate how different the two issues are, when same-sex marriage became legal in California, it took a month to enact it from an administrative standpoint. Why? Because only the discriminatory wording on marriage certificates had to be removed, and that’s about it. What about polygamy? If someone has already formed a family, adding other partners into the mix will change other legal documents and well as have tax implications. Besides, polygamy is alive and well in our society. There are religions that still practice it and religious marriages beyond the first still take place in their churches. They cannot be banned by the state, nor should they be. The first marriage (if solemnized with a legal marriage certificate) is the one that is legal when it comes to tax implications and rights of survivorship. If someone has additional members they want to care for, pay a lawyer and get a will and trust. Other than that, if the state allows an unmarried citizen to marry another unmarried citizen, there should be no discrimination concerning who you pick to be your life partner.

  • br_political

    This is how the morons lost the last 2 elections, they believed their fake polls. 1st of all we did not need these last 2 elections because by definition of marriage at the writing of the state constitution it meant only man/woman. These justices never have any legal right to render any decision over-ruling the constitution. And the 18,000 gay marriages were never legal. There are plenty of people not registered and did not vote which are against gay marriage.

    • boxcarboy6

      We need to maintain reasonable perspective. At the bare bones of this issue there is only one reason why prop 8 should be thrown out. We are all equal and no one can dismiss that fact.
      Should we revert back to hating one another for because of our differences? I think not.
      Let us step into the future united by our equality and leave fear and hate behind.

  • br_political

    Actually I hope they throw out prop 8 so we can recall all of them. You want to see shit fly can prop 8. I can go up to SF and recall these judges. The gay legals are the upper crust of society living off the sweat of the lower classes. Let me see how many married couples or single mothers working 2 minimum wages jobs are going to the funny boys access to their kids for their own sexual pleasure. You guys Fing crazy to think the general population is going to kiss your @#$ and be your sex and tax slaves. I been up in San Jose and I know joe blow ain’t going for it. Stop conducting your fake polls and mostly stop believing them.

  • Silhouette

    “silhouette, if someone wants to open up the issue of federal rights for plural marriages, that’s their issue. if they succeed, and polygamy is ever federally recognized, it cannot be exclusionary to a particular group. in other words, the government must make the institution of polygamous marriage available to any tax-paying citizen under equal access laws. what gay-rights advocates are saying–and what you don’t seem to be hearing–is that the government cannot discriminate against sexual orientation when it comes to offering a benefit to its citizens. and that’s what this is: SEXUAL ORIENTATION–meaning whether a person is attracted to men, or to women, or to both’~ The Gayz
    ******

    Some people have been or are conditioned to be only sexually stimulated when multiple partners are present. We are talking about sex and not love right? So very unclear at times…and how “sex” is the qualifier for marriage…is that what you’re saying? It’s about sexual preference and not love between consenting adults. Please clarify..

    So then polygamists, properly, are just another facet of those who don’t fall under “between one man and one woman”, sexually? speaking..

    “..if they ever succeed…”

    It won’t be long before the polygamists have their day in court. “Waiting in the wings” is a phrase that comes to mind..

  • valit

    “We are talking about sex and not love right?”

    I didn’t think we were. Do people get married just to have sex? I thought it was to share their lives with their partner.

  • teh_gayz

    silhouette, sexual orientation is not sexual preference. you and your kind apparently have a lot of trouble with the definition of sexual orientation, but that is not surprising given that many of you are borderline illiterate. look up the definition, or try and read the one that i gave. i even put it in all caps for you, to make it really super easy.

    when/if the dreaded polygamists have their day in court, you better have some reasons beyond, “well, we already let the gays do it, so….” regarding marriage, the gay-rights movment has asked why what’s between our legs is so damn important to be able to participate in it, and we haven’t gotten a credible answer from ANYONE. can you tell us why it’s so important? because the “now the polygamists are coming!” crap is really, really worn out. polygamy is your problem, not ours.

  • yustie

    following Silhouettes logic ( and i know this is a slippery slope argument but much of what he is saying is ) if we let gay people marry then polygamist will be next in line…ok fine no gay marriage no polygamy… HOWEVER say they uphold prop 8 and make it between a man and woman ONLY.. whose to say the “non-deviant” majority arent then going to come after bi-racial marriages… or marriage between blacks… (i believe someone said it best when they said “you may not be gay… but you may be next”)..i agree that churchs should not have to recognize gay marriage if they deem it to be opposed to their belief system…. however last i checked churches werent supposed to be imposing their beliefs on government issues… and another point: on nov. 4th when a very NARROW majority took away the rights of gay people to marry… gay marriage was already legal and contrary to what the supporters of prop 8 say.. there wasnt a hole torn in the space time continuum and children being taught to about gay marriage… all was well…. i would love… for just ONE of those MAJORITY to have a right STRIPPED away from them and made to feel second class to the all the “non-deviants” who treat it like a joke… the ones who allowed to get married and divorced as many times in their life as they want… whereas two people who have been together for years… and love each other a great deal… cant…

  • Dreamdogs

    I have read the May 2008 California Supreme Court decision when the court ruled in favor of Gay Marriage. The court at that time found that marriage was a “Fundamental Right” and denying a minority group to be disenfranchised from marriage violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. I am an attorney and I really am baffled by the Court. Clearly, if a ballot initiative changes a Fundamental Right i.e.. Gay Marriage how can the Court find that Prop 8’s change to the Constitution is not a Fundamental change. In order to change the Constitution in a fundamental way The proposed change requires the legislature to first vote on the matter and the vote must be 2/3 of both houses, then the people vote and that vote also must be 2/3 of the vote.

    Frankly, if the Court does not find this a Fundamental change we can start voting on ballots that take away rights from any group unless explicitly protected by the US constitution and Federal Law. For example we could get ballot initiatives that say:California does not recognize Mormons as a religion, No one over 50 can get married (because after all the couple could not procreate) People that have been convicted of Felony cannot get married. The list could go on and on. The Supreme Court would set a terrible precedent. The Court would be saying that a majority of people can vote on virtually anything including Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Equal Protection. Just a mere majority can start taking away everybody’s rights! People should be very worried about their own rights. Just as Gay Marriage was taken away by a majority vote your rights can also be voted away by a majority vote.

    Remember, up until now constitutional Amendments expanded rights. In addition, such a serious matter as taking away a Fundamental Right should never be allowed to be achieved by a mere majority. The constitution was written to protect minority groups from the will of the Majority. This would be a very bad decision.

    The California Supreme if it affirms Prop 8 will look like a laughing stock and will ensure no ones rights are safe. Legally,
    I find the only just decision is to do one of two things: either strike down Prop 8 or strike down all marriages. Both these decisions would square with the Courts May 2008 decision. I also hope the Court looks at what has happened in the last few months especially the Iowa Supreme Court (comprised of 7 Republican appointees ) who wrote a 68 page opinion unanimously finding for Gay Marriage. The Court sites California Supreme Court’s May 2008 decision to be dispositive. Please take the time to read Iowa’s decision. The Court explained all aspects of their decision. I believe that Iowa’s decision was directly responsible for changing the minds of the Governor in Maine and New Hampshire who both said they were against Gay Marriage but both Governors changed their minds and have or will sign their states legislation into Law , allowing Gay Marriage.

    Please send E-Mails to the California Supreme Court Justices asking them to over rule Prop 8. We cannot let a small majority take away our fundamental Rights!

  • valit

    Issues are looked at on a case-by-case basis. The slippery slope argument simplistically assumes that same-sex marriage and polygamy are somehow on some kind of linear progression. The case for same-sex marriage has been amply made with high courts all over the country affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry. If and when it comes to polygamy, it will be looked at independently and those in favour will have the opportunity to argue for it. But I doubt it will be enough to say: if these 2 can marry regardless of gender, why can’t I have 10 wives?

  • ioandoyle

    Over 6 million people voted in favor of Prop 8, but there are almost 40 million people living in California. I am sick to death of hearing this overzealous minority referred to as “the will of the people.” Also, let’s not forget that POLYGAMY is the Biblical standard for marriage. How many married men in the Bible can you name who have only one wife? Sheesh. There is a “compelling state interest” in not allowing polygamy as one man could legally father hundreds of children, and it’s impossible for one man to support hundreds of kids. Saying that same-sex marriage and polygamy are intertwined is no different than saying that if you allow people to go 65 on the freeway you can’t stop them from doing 65 in a school zone and children will die. It’s ludicrous. We set arbitrary limits within American law all the time.

  • lampadas

    It seems people are confusing “democracy” with “mob rule.” We live in a DEMOCRACY. The big difference between democracy and mob rule is the ability of judges to step in and say, “Wait. This vote infringes on the basic rights of other citizens.” Suppose Prop 8 had said it’s illegal for Catholics to be employed in California or it’s illegal for Mormons to attend public school in California? Does anyone really believe that would stand up to a legal challenge? Why then have so many legal scholars said they think Prop 8 will be upheld??? I don’t get it. If it is, doesn’t that set a precedent for voting away the aforementioned rights from Catholics or Mormons? And on that note, if it does pass, how does one start the process to invalidate Mormonism as a recognized religion in California? Those folks have prevented over $100 million from flowing into our state due to same-sex marriage. The very least they can do is donate $100 million to California to make up the difference…

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com