Calif.'s Prop 8: It's Not Over Till It's Over

Even if California voters pass the anti-gay marriage amendment in November, marriage equality could still prevail.

[Rocco]

It is surprising and somewhat encouraging that 80% of the anti-gay comments on this board are from the same person cutting, pasting and rehashing bits of the same hackneyed and illiterate rant. Surely if our enemies had valid points they would be able to construct a coherent argument

[Rick in Kansas]

Of course the first person to respond on this thread had to be Wil and his imaginary friends. Any time he sees any question dealing with marriage equality he has the uncontrolable compulsion to show up with his usual cut and paste heterofascist diatribe of pathological lies and already refuted irrational arguments, but let's try not to make this yet another thread about him and his assortment of sick delusions. We all already know that he has nothing more to say than this and can't support or defend any of his absurd contentions.

I posted this article because it opens up an interesting question, what happens if proposition 8 actually passes? Will it be able to survive the inevitable legal challenge to it?

Ignore Wil and his little troll friends, he/they won't go away, but at least we can try to have a discussion that doesn't wander off into the warped wonderland of his design...

[George Funk]

It's an interesting article. I'd like to read a lawyer's evalution of these arguments.

[Shadow Dragon]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Of course the first person to respond on this thread had to be Wil and his imaginary friends. Any time he sees any question dealing with marriage equality he has the uncontrolable compulsion to show up with his usual cut and paste heterofascist diatribe of pathological lies and already refuted irrational arguments, but let's try not to make this yet another thread about him and his assortment of sick delusions. We all already know that he has nothing more to say than this and can't support or defend any of his absurd contentions.
I posted this article because it opens up an interesting question, what happens if proposition 8 actually passes? Will it be able to survive the inevitable legal challenge to it?
Ignore Wil and his little troll friends, he/they won't go away, but at least we can try to have a discussion that doesn't wander off into the warped wonderland of his design...

Why don't we give him too much attention and he'll get bored, I all ready did so with one idiot.

[Will]

Darnell wrote:

Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Agreed.

[Flint]

I'm surprised his cut-and-paste button hasn't worn out already. As soon as I recognize the first few lines are the same tired nonsensical diatribe, I just go to the next poster.

[Ed D35]

Darnell wrote:

Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Oh look!!!!!!!!! Yet another Wil personality!!!!!!! You cut and paste the same old crap and drivle, you're so transparant it's really quite pathetic!!!! Try a new line, but better yet, try getting a clue and a life!!!!

[Mikey]

Darnell wrote:

Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Hi Darnell...how have you been? My friend Steve (you know Adams ex) said he ran into you at the Pekin mall rest room today. Glad to hear you were doing well and still the same old you. Do you still have that problem repeating yourself all the time? Anyway, take care.
I know this was a bit off topic...sorry everybody...just tired of the blah blah blah 1.6% blah blah blah. Hope I got a smile out of ya.

[LuLu Ford]

George Funk wrote:

It's an interesting article. I'd like to read a lawyer's evalution of these arguments.

The writer is a lawyer. So it looks like win lose or draw, the bigots will end up with more egg on their faces.

Peter DelVecchio is a practicing attorney and a reporter for IN Los Angeles Magazine and Frontiers.

[Rose T-H]

Darnell wrote:

Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

SAME GARBAGE, DIFFERENT NAME.
Please try a new phrase, this one is REALLY OLD AND WORN.

[LuLu Ford]

Some folks are just having too much fun with the judge buttons. ROTFLMAO

[Gary47]

Wil and Will are both compelling arguments why Topix should require all posters to be registered.

[Briain]

Darnell Sounds like you may be a little obsessed with gays and expecially gay sex. Maybe you have your doubts? I don't know any confident heterosexuals that care as much as you do or get so worked up over 1-3 percent of the population. Maybe you should move on to something constructive in your own life.

Darnell wrote:

Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

[cross99]

Getting back to subject at hand and not the so-called Wil persona, I don't believe that the people of the State of California will allow discrimination to be written into the Constitution of this state. I believe that there are too many people who live here that are level headed and will use common sense to see that Prop 8 is just that - a discriminatory proposition that will, if passed, be overturned by the Supreme Court.

It amazes me that the number of anti-Gay marriage advocates are from out of state. What Mayor Newsom said when Prop 22 was overturned is true - As California goes, so goes the nation. I believe that they are so afraid that he is right, they will try everything in their power (which is very little) to get the American people to despise our way of life, which is genetic, by the way and NOT a chosen lifestyle as they want everyone to believe.

I work for an attorney and he also believes that if this passes, it will be overturned because of it's discrimination. His feeling is that if gays and lesbians want to marry, it's fine with him, why should only straights be allowed to suffer.

[Rose T-H]

cross99 wrote:

Getting back to subject at hand and not the so-called Wil persona, I don't believe that the people of the State of California will allow discrimination to be written into the Constitution of this state. I believe that there are too many people who live here that are level headed and will use common sense to see that Prop 8 is just that - a discriminatory proposition that will, if passed, be overturned by the Supreme Court.
I agree with you whole heartedly.
If Prop 8 should pass on November 4th, By November 5th there will be legal challenges ready to go.
It took 8 years for the California Supreme Court to OVERTURN Prop 22. I am hoping that Prop 8 never goes in to effect.
Blessed Be
It amazes me that the number of anti-Gay marriage advocates are from out of state. What Mayor Newsom said when Prop 22 was overturned is true - As California goes, so goes the nation. I believe that they are so afraid that he is right, they will try everything in their power (which is very little) to get the American people to despise our way of life, which is genetic, by the way and NOT a chosen lifestyle as they want everyone to believe.
I work for an attorney and he also believes that if this passes, it will be overturned because of it's discrimination. His feeling is that if gays and lesbians want to marry, it's fine with him, why should only straights be allowed to suffer.

I agree with you whole heartedly.
I believe that should Prop 8 pass on the 4th of November, by the 5th, there will be legal challenges in place.
I only hope that it does not take another 8 years for the California Supreme Court to get this right.

[Michael Ejercito]

What provision of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to enter into same-sex "marriage"?

[Shadow Dragon]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

What provision of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to enter into same-sex "marriage"?

14th amendment

[LuLu Ford]

Shadow Dragon wrote:

<quoted text>
14th amendment

Absolutely correct and here is why.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

Also, many churches are willing to marry same sex couples yet cannot do so. This is an infringement of the 1st amendment. The man/woman construct is an infringement of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Will]

George Funk wrote:

It's an interesting article. I'd like to read a lawyer's evalution of these arguments.

Per your request:

A. If(When) Prop8 passes, the California Supreme Court Gang of 4 can no longer, with a straight face, get away with making up the rules of construction as it goes along, because the rules have already been established by that court's predecessors, such as:

1. "Elementary principles of construction dictate that where constitutional provisions can reasonably be construed to avoid a conflict, such an interpretation should be adopted.[citation].

This maxim suggests that [an earlier constitutional provision] should not be construed to apply ... otherwise it would clash with [a later constitutional provision].

If the two provisions were found irreconcilable,[the later constitutional provision] would prevail because it is more specific and was adopted more recently.[citations]. "Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971).

2. "As we held in Rose v. State, 19 Cal.2d 713, 723, 724 [123 P.2d 505]:'It is well settled, also, that a general provision is controlled by one that is special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former.

A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.'[citations]". County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co., 50 Cal.2d 182 (1958).

3. "Under familiar rules of construction, if it is impossible to harmonize or reconcile portions of a constitution, special provisions control more general provisions, and the general and special provisions operate together, neither working the repeal of the other.[citations]." People v. Western Air Lines, Inc., 42 Cal.2d 621 (1954).

Consequently, the well-established rules of constitutional construction requires that the LATER, SPECIAL PROVISION limiting marriage to a man and a woman would govern over EARLIER, GENERAL PROVISIONS of "right to privacy", "due process" and "equal protection" as the Gang of 4 has "construed" these general provisions.

B. For the reasons just stated, the implied GENERAL '“fundamental right” to marry under the constitution’s due process and privacy clauses would thus have to be construed by the Gang of 4 as a fundamental right limited only to a man and a woman, NOT as a fundamental right to marry that includes same-sex couples.

C. For the reasons just stated, any claim that 'Prop. 22 violated the California constitution’s “equal protection” clause' would no longer be a viable claim, since the EARLIER, GENERAL PROVISION of "equal protection" would be governed by the LATER, SPECIAL PROVISION of Prop8 that makes it clear that same-sex couples are NOT constitutionally "equal" to opposite-sex couples for the particular purpose of civil marriage.

[*********CONTINUED**********

[Will]

[MORE Analysis of the Advocate article]:

D. The "gays as a suspect classification" should disappear, for 2 principal reasons:

1. The passage of Prop8 OVERRULES the Gang of 4's 5/15/08 ruling and should negate that ruling in its entirety. Certainly, the 5/15/08 decision would not be controlling legal precedent, having been overruled on the very grounds that it is not unconstitutional -- indeed, that it is in fact SOMETIMES valid -- to classify homosexuals for different treatment, depending on the circumstances.

2. In any event, the Gang of 4's 5/15/08 ruling ITSELF expressly held, in footnote 17 of the majority opinion, that the traditional marriage laws were NOT the result of discriminatory intent or animus -- consequently, there is no legal basis to justify "strict scrutiny" of any subject matter that is currently at issue. The Court is not authorized to issue advisory opinions or to use the occasion of this litigation as a "soap box" for issues that are not in controversy.

E. The 'Prop 8 as a constitutional “revision” and not merely a constitutional “amendment”' fails because there are plenty of California precedents establishing the liberal construction of what constitutes an "amendment". See generally, Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 C.3d 208.; Brosnahan v. Eu, 31 Cal.3d 1 (1982); Brosnahan v. Brown, 32 Cal.3d 236 (1982).

F. The Advocate article compares Prop8 to "the death penalty" initiative, but applied "only to a certain group of people". For the California supreme court's analysis and approval of the 1972 California "death penalty" initiative, see People v. Frierson (1979) 25 C.3d 142 (1979).

The short answer why the Advocate comparison fails here is because Prop8 is NOT applied "only to a certain group of people" -- it applies to ALL people who want to marry, regardless of their sexual preferences.

Arguably, the article writer meant to suggest that only GAYS would suffer the "death penalty" of a disparate impact under a marriage restriction to opposite-sex couples. But disparate impact is not enough. Remember that the Gang of 4 has held that the opposite-sex limitation in traditional marriage is NOT the result of discriminatory intent in the nature of animus. Remember also that there is no "strict scrutiny" to be applied because there is no "fundamental right to same-sex marriage" or "equal protection" entitlement, because of Prop8.

G. The Advocate article quotes the California Supreme Court majority opinion as saying:“[T]he California Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite sex couples..." -- but the court majority was WRONG, because the claimed "substantive constitutional rights" for same-sex couples to marry never HAVE existed.

The passage of Prop8 will make clear that no such "substantive constitutional rights" exist; passage of Prop8 will also make it clear that "substantive constitutional rights" cannot be CREATED by the California Supreme Court.