Our View: Supreme Court should settle Prop. 8 now

Nov 29, 2012 Full story: Pasadena Star-News 57

In this Nov. 12, 2012, Karen Golinski, left, and Amy Cunninghis, look over a photo album of their wedding photos in San Francisco.

Full Story

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Nov 30, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
It really is probably best they not take the Prop 8 case and just move on to the DOMA cases. Californians can get married, if DOMA parts are struck down and the firewall between marriage equality an US law is taken down the rest is a piece of cake, still baking but ready any time the country is hungry enough. Those of us who need federal rules taken down can just head to equality states to get married, come back home and move forward with our lives. States still blocking will lose out on millions in new income and sooner than later get on the bandwagon letting the rest wait till it heads back to the Supremes.
Agreed 100%.

The SCOTUS taking the Prop 8 case can only be bad news for us, because the only reason they'd take the case would be to UPHOLD Prop8, thereby setting a new precedent for state consitutional bans.

The best result is getting federal recognition of existing marriages, and then working to overturn bans state-by-state until the court has a solid liberal majority. THEN we take the next step in federal court.

I know everyone is antsy for the "big win", but realistically this is going to take another decade.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#25 Dec 2, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That "plan B" has always been available to them, but they chose to rely on the courts instead.
They could have put it on the ballot this year and it would have been all over now.
Instead they're stuck waiting for the SCOTUS.
I'd presumed they thought they'd *lose* if they tried it.

You actually have a point, LOL.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#26 Dec 2, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is basically NOTHING that can be done to force the SCOTUS to act.
If the 9th circuit ever got the balls to lift their stay, the SCOTUS would just grant their own stay.
There is NOTHING we can do to force the SCOTUS to act. But we COULD have negated them by putting it on the ballot in 2012.
Oh well, it was their choice.
Then you and I disagree.

(And that's not "outlandish" to me; I presume -- as I can only do, since you're making a "blanket statement" here -- that you are seeing this in certain terms, and not outside them. I am basically "useless" in this sense on this board, not criticizing myself but being extremely realistic: There are certain things I *WILL NOT* say here a. because of how they might (falsely) look, and b. because I don't talk about my personal life. In other words, I could clarify but I won't; I simply drop certain points without my opinion changing a whit, based on *extremely specific* points of view. But rest assured, while I am not buying what you said here, I presume that I see what *you* mean. In fact, getting the court to act would take such monumental effort that in practical terms, one could say that America, WITH ITS CURRENT MAKEUP, would not make the effort, and so ... voila ... what YOU say is true. Based on the country as it currently is, yeah, you are absolutely correct.)

I will only say that a great, long, close scrutiny of history shows that in cases where people thought they "could not" do something by any means whatsoever, it happened by other means.

Why do I make such a belabored point of this? I don't like the sense that YOU or YOUR ilk feel hopeless; it irks me to a point that it is *impossible* for me to stay silent on this matter, to the point that I'd belabor it *even if you and I ended up arguing viciously*-- yes, it's that important to me. So I'll leave this one to you, coming to the unfortunate conclusion that what you say is correct -- for reasons which I have a sneaking hunch are vastly different from the ones you would name.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#27 Dec 2, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed 100%.
The SCOTUS taking the Prop 8 case can only be bad news for us, because the only reason they'd take the case would be to UPHOLD Prop8, thereby setting a new precedent for state consitutional bans.
The best result is getting federal recognition of existing marriages, and then working to overturn bans state-by-state until the court has a solid liberal majority. THEN we take the next step in federal court.
I know everyone is antsy for the "big win", but realistically this is going to take another decade.
I honestly believe it's going to take several decades; I finally just shrugged and said "F*** IT" and have resigned myself to this. Based on the way these things are being handled, I privately believe this is gonna be 2-4 decades, 2 if lucky.

I could be wrong; I had *z-e-r-o* idea that THREE states would vote for marriage equality in this election. All I know is that the younger generations don't give a *SHIT* about this issue (in a good way), and *solidly* see it as a civil rights thing, unchangeably so.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#28 Dec 2, 2012
And I disagree. Within the next four years we are going to see redo voting in more than one or two states to redo their earlier votes on state constitutional amendments against equal marriage. The moment the first state reverses the house of cards collapse becomes very real.

Lets face it, once DOMA is dead and federal benefits are allowed (sooner than later) tens of thousands of same sex marriages are going to take place. Those marriages will be of people living in states where they wont be recognized by their homes state but will be recognized by the Feds. Marriages are portable regardless of state lines and regardless of how a state might feel about them. That's the enchilada, the whole enchilada may take a bit longer but certainly not several decades.
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly believe it's going to take several decades; I finally just shrugged and said "F*** IT" and have resigned myself to this. Based on the way these things are being handled, I privately believe this is gonna be 2-4 decades, 2 if lucky.
I could be wrong; I had *z-e-r-o* idea that THREE states would vote for marriage equality in this election. All I know is that the younger generations don't give a *SHIT* about this issue (in a good way), and *solidly* see it as a civil rights thing, unchangeably so.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Dec 2, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you and I disagree.
(And that's not "outlandish" to me; I presume -- as I can only do, since you're making a "blanket statement" here -- that you are seeing this in certain terms, and not outside them. I am basically "useless" in this sense on this board, not criticizing myself but being extremely realistic: There are certain things I *WILL NOT* say here a. because of how they might (falsely) look, and b. because I don't talk about my personal life. In other words, I could clarify but I won't; I simply drop certain points without my opinion changing a whit, based on *extremely specific* points of view. But rest assured, while I am not buying what you said here, I presume that I see what *you* mean. In fact, getting the court to act would take such monumental effort that in practical terms, one could say that America, WITH ITS CURRENT MAKEUP, would not make the effort, and so ... voila ... what YOU say is true. Based on the country as it currently is, yeah, you are absolutely correct.)
I will only say that a great, long, close scrutiny of history shows that in cases where people thought they "could not" do something by any means whatsoever, it happened by other means.
Why do I make such a belabored point of this? I don't like the sense that YOU or YOUR ilk feel hopeless; it irks me to a point that it is *impossible* for me to stay silent on this matter, to the point that I'd belabor it *even if you and I ended up arguing viciously*-- yes, it's that important to me. So I'll leave this one to you, coming to the unfortunate conclusion that what you say is correct -- for reasons which I have a sneaking hunch are vastly different from the ones you would name.
Yes, I'm talking about the real world; how things actually are today in American society.

There are no legal options to force the court act. None. Period. What they are doing is 100% constitutional.

The ONLY way to get the courts attention would be through massive protests & civil disobedience akin to the civil rights protests of the 1950s & 60s. We both know that's never going to happen; we simply don't have the numbers necessary to make a difference.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#30 Dec 2, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly believe it's going to take several decades; I finally just shrugged and said "F*** IT" and have resigned myself to this. Based on the way these things are being handled, I privately believe this is gonna be 2-4 decades, 2 if lucky.
I could be wrong; I had *z-e-r-o* idea that THREE states would vote for marriage equality in this election. All I know is that the younger generations don't give a *SHIT* about this issue (in a good way), and *solidly* see it as a civil rights thing, unchangeably so.
The demographics and attitudes are changing MUCH faster than that. The REAL problem is the makeup of the current SCOTUS and the length of time it takes a case to go from the district court all the way up. The makeup of the court is likely to change over the next 8 years, but the big question will be whether it remains a conservative majority or is flipped to a liberal majority.

Assuming Kennedy & Scalia don't die in the next 4 years, everything will depend on who is elected president in 2016.

If the GOP takes the White House, Scalia & Kennedy are likely to retire ensuring a solid conservative (and anti-gay) majority on the court for another 20 years. That would likely mean the fight would continue state-by-state.

However, if the Dems keep the White House, then in all likelihood the court will be flipped to a liberal majority, just about the time the next batch of marriage equality lawsuits get to the SCOTUS. That would put an end to all this nonsense by about 2020.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#31 Dec 2, 2012
OMG, I can't believe I'm considering the 2016 election already!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#32 Dec 2, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The demographics and attitudes are changing MUCH faster than that. The REAL problem is the makeup of the current SCOTUS and the length of time it takes a case to go from the district court all the way up. The makeup of the court is likely to change over the next 8 years, but the big question will be whether it remains a conservative majority or is flipped to a liberal majority.
Assuming Kennedy & Scalia don't die in the next 4 years, everything will depend on who is elected president in 2016.
If the GOP takes the White House, Scalia & Kennedy are likely to retire ensuring a solid conservative (and anti-gay) majority on the court for another 20 years. That would likely mean the fight would continue state-by-state.
However, if the Dems keep the White House, then in all likelihood the court will be flipped to a liberal majority, just about the time the next batch of marriage equality lawsuits get to the SCOTUS. That would put an end to all this nonsense by about 2020.
You're assuming of course that the Senate stays with a Democratic majority, which nobody can predict.

And if Americans approve of what The Obamanaic has been doing, then why do Americans keep voing for a Republican majority in the House ?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#33 Dec 2, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're assuming of course that the Senate stays with a Democratic majority, which nobody can predict.
And if Americans approve of what The Obamanaic has been doing, then why do Americans keep voing for a Republican majority in the House ?
Gerrymandering.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#34 Dec 2, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Gerrymandering.
So I guess that's the reason that Democrats had the majority in the House for 40 solid years, right ? Gerrymandering.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#35 Dec 3, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess that's the reason that Democrats had the majority in the House for 40 solid years, right ? Gerrymandering.
Stop playing dumb. You're not blond enough nor young enough to make that work for you.

You are surely aware that Democratic House candidates accumulated more votes nationwide than Repubulican candidates. If representation were anywhere near the proportion of votes cast, we would have Democratic control of both houses.

I can't say whether that went the other way during years of Democratic control. And I'm not complaining: The rules are what they are.[Cue the patriotic music and paeon to the Founding Fathers.] But gerrymandering is the reason the House is in Democratic control. You seemed to have been under the misapprehension that it was due to the popular vote.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#36 Dec 3, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're assuming of course that the Senate stays with a Democratic majority, which nobody can predict.
And if Americans approve of what The Obamanaic has been doing, then why do Americans keep voing for a Republican majority in the House ?
Yes, I'm assuming the Dems will hold the Senate or even pick up a couple more seats in '14 & '16 just like they did this year. They will also likely pick up more House seats like they did this year.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#37 Dec 3, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
And I disagree. Within the next four years we are going to see redo voting in more than one or two states to redo their earlier votes on state constitutional amendments against equal marriage. The moment the first state reverses the house of cards collapse becomes very real.
Lets face it, once DOMA is dead and federal benefits are allowed (sooner than later) tens of thousands of same sex marriages are going to take place. Those marriages will be of people living in states where they wont be recognized by their homes state but will be recognized by the Feds. Marriages are portable regardless of state lines and regardless of how a state might feel about them. That's the enchilada, the whole enchilada may take a bit longer but certainly not several decades.
<quoted text>
Hope you're right.

I was *delighted* to be wrong with these recent state votes.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#38 Dec 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I'm talking about the real world; how things actually are today in American society.
There are no legal options to force the court act. None. Period. What they are doing is 100% constitutional.
The ONLY way to get the courts attention would be through massive protests & civil disobedience akin to the civil rights protests of the 1950s & 60s. We both know that's never going to happen; we simply don't have the numbers necessary to make a difference.
Exaaaactly; thank you. You got it. There are ways to do it; why don't we agree that we have hit upon the reasons that it is *possible* to move the court but is *almost 100% unlikely* to happen.

We may see it differently; we may attribute it to different causes and reasons; but we just basically agreed, so.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#39 Dec 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The demographics and attitudes are changing MUCH faster than that. The REAL problem is the makeup of the current SCOTUS and the length of time it takes a case to go from the district court all the way up. The makeup of the court is likely to change over the next 8 years, but the big question will be whether it remains a conservative majority or is flipped to a liberal majority.
Assuming Kennedy & Scalia don't die in the next 4 years, everything will depend on who is elected president in 2016.
If the GOP takes the White House, Scalia & Kennedy are likely to retire ensuring a solid conservative (and anti-gay) majority on the court for another 20 years. That would likely mean the fight would continue state-by-state.
However, if the Dems keep the White House, then in all likelihood the court will be flipped to a liberal majority, just about the time the next batch of marriage equality lawsuits get to the SCOTUS. That would put an end to all this nonsense by about 2020.
Allowing this analysis (it's great/nice), I will underline again one of my main sentiments about the fact that anyone ever had to wait at all: There will be gay people dead by then who waited their whole lives for this.

Mark my words:

I will never, never, never forgive the antigay for that. I will remember until my dying breath.

Until then.

Also, thank you.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#40 Dec 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I'm assuming the Dems will hold the Senate or even pick up a couple more seats in '14 & '16 just like they did this year. They will also likely pick up more House seats like they did this year.
There's a pretty good chance Democrats will pick up seats in the house, but the Senate will be problematic for the same reason Democrats were expected to lose a couple of seats in 2012: There are 20 Democratic seats to defend, vs 13 Republican. The Republican seats look pretty safe. There are also six Democratic senators who have not announced their intention to run in 2014, vs only one Republican.

There are a few Democratic senators who won with less than 50% of the vote, and a few others with low margins. Republicans have several opportunities to pick up seats if they don't blow it again.

The best opportunity for the Democrats to pick up a seat is for the Tea Party to primary a couple of otherwise safe senate seats. But they'd never be that stupid, would they?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41 Dec 4, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing this analysis (it's great/nice), I will underline again one of my main sentiments about the fact that anyone ever had to wait at all: There will be gay people dead by then who waited their whole lives for this.
Mark my words:
I will never, never, never forgive the antigay for that. I will remember until my dying breath.
Until then.
Also, thank you.
That is the saddest part of this. For the anti-gays is just about "tradition" or "principle" or whatever; it doesn't affect their lives directly and cause them no harm.

On the other hand, as you note many gays & lesbians will die without ever seeing true equality; some as a direct result of the continued institutional discrimination we face on a daily basis.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#42 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a pretty good chance Democrats will pick up seats in the house, but the Senate will be problematic for the same reason Democrats were expected to lose a couple of seats in 2012: There are 20 Democratic seats to defend, vs 13 Republican. The Republican seats look pretty safe. There are also six Democratic senators who have not announced their intention to run in 2014, vs only one Republican.
There are a few Democratic senators who won with less than 50% of the vote, and a few others with low margins. Republicans have several opportunities to pick up seats if they don't blow it again.
The best opportunity for the Democrats to pick up a seat is for the Tea Party to primary a couple of otherwise safe senate seats. But they'd never be that stupid, would they?
Oh I have comple faith they will indeed "blow it again". Look for more teabaggers to challenge any Republicans in primaries who agree to the coming tax increases- i.e. Susan Collins- Maine.

Trust me, they'll blow it again.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#43 Dec 4, 2012
And I still can't figure out why she pulled that crap the other day. Some times she seems to be addle brained.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I have comple faith they will indeed "blow it again". Look for more teabaggers to challenge any Republicans in primaries who agree to the coming tax increases- i.e. Susan Collins- Maine.
Trust me, they'll blow it again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 32 min Dale 56,613
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dale 179,208
Bush Won't Declare Disaster For Levees (Apr '06) 4 hr Swedenforever 82
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Fair Game 47,469
Californians fight over migrants 12 hr barefoot2626 158
Remembering a life in the High Desert: Joe Mathews Sat dixie nourmiss 2
Mixed conclusions on cause of 2013 drought Sat Earthling-1 1

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE