Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Are you sure it won't be the State of California defending it? The entire state still falls within the 9th Circuit IIRC.

The State declined to defend it the first time. Means the governor and AG chose NOT to mount a defense (not sure who calls the shots there but it's not important.) So the Pro-Prop 8 people are defending on behalf of the state.

I doubt CA would choose to defend it now.

[Drolefille]

[preciousjeni]

[DaemonSeid]

Hopefully Sens I would get a kick out of this

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And it will go to appeal, unfortunately. Although I wonder how it works when the state of California isn't the one defending it, but outside agents "on behalf of the state."

*Pages MysticCat*

Can the outside agents file the appeal on behalf of California? Are there more hoops they have to jump through?

Given the governor's and attorney general's decisions not to defend it, the court allowed the current defendants -- some groups that supported Prop 8 -- to intervene so that there would be someone to defend the suit. That means those groups are now defendants. Unless plaintiffs opposed that at the trial court and make that an issue on appeal, no more hoops regarding the parties.

It will definitely be appealed -- that was clear along, regardless of who won and who lost.

I haven't had a chance to read the (130+ page) opinion yet; I've just followed some news sources. From those, I take it that the court focused heavily on how defendants' evidence had not established a rational basis for Prop 8. A law that discriminates between people who are not part of a protected class (e.g., racial or ethnic minorities) does not violate the equal protection clause if it has a rational basis. This could good and bad for the opponents of Prop 8 and similar measures.

On the "good" side, it means that the appeals court may show more deference to the trial court. Questions of law are considered anew by an appeals court, but for questions of fact/evidence, deference is usually given to the trial court. Findings of fact are generally harder to overturn on appeal than conclusions of law.

On the "bad" side, it doesn't mean that the trial court found that same-sex marriage bans are per se unconstitutional. Rather, he found that these defendants had not shown a rational basis for this ban.

Though the Ninth Circuit is traditionally more liberal/progressive/choose your term, I wouldn't automatically assume that it will affirm the trial court's decision. We'll have to wait and see.

If they reverse the trial judge, the case may well stop there. The Supreme Court may not see a need to step in. On the other hand if they affirm it, I think it's headed to the Supreme Court. Unless the make-up of the Court changes between now and then by someone other than a more liberal justice or Justice Kennedy leaving, I think the odds in SCOTUS definitely favor the proponants of Prop 8.

FWIW.

[Ghostwriter]

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

You're really going to draw a parallel between consenting adults of the same sex and . . . well, it would be pretty silly to compare to ANYTHING, but particularly, using children in the comparison is absurd.

The entire "WHERE DOES IT END?!? CAN I MARRY LAMP?" line of thought is fairly ridiculous as it is - it seems clear that the line is drawn at 2 consenting adults - but use of NAMBLA seems unnecessarily cute, too. Well done dude.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You're really going to draw a parallel between consenting adults of the same sex and . . . well, it would be pretty silly to compare to ANYTHING, but particularly, using children in the comparison is absurd.

The entire "WHERE DOES IT END?!? CAN I MARRY LAMP?" line of thought is fairly ridiculous as it is - it seems clear that the line is drawn at 2 consenting adults - but use of NAMBLA seems unnecessarily cute, too. Well done dude.

Probably comes from the same place as the belief that all gay men are predators trying to seduce and rape children or that gay men are sexually aggressive toward men simply because they're men (not because of any real attraction or emotional connection).

[DaemonSeid]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...2.html#s123084

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Probably comes from the same place as the belief that all gay men are predators trying to seduce and rape children or that gay men are sexually aggressive toward men simply because they're men (not because of any real attraction or emotional connection).

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives?

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

So what? Birth defects happen to children in marriages that are not among close relatives.

Many monarchies survived hundreds of years inbreeding. I would bet that mankind survived due to inbreeding in its early years.

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?