Posted on 11/05/2008 12:59:46 PM PST by NoRedTape
Prop 8 has passed! "YES" has won........but will the State challenge it? What can we do to keep "Yes on 8"?
The lawsuit has already been filed.
I voted for this in AZ...but think we now have more important moral issues that a few gay people getting “married”. I’m so freaked out by a Marxist/Abortionist (full term)/Anti-American in the WH that i can’t see straight. (no pun intended).
I assume that it will be legally challenged, and that some activist court will overturn it. Surely, I’m not the only one who believes that.
I read somewhere that proponents for prop 8 are already talking to judges.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was..........
Message to the “Gay Community”: Stop trying to mess with the dictionary!
“Marriage” has always and will always be defined as the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. If you want to take, say, the term “surgery” and make it also include biting your fingernails, take your best shot. If you want to come up with a term that describes uniting two men or two women in matrimony and call it “Homo Hoop-tee-doo”, then have at it! But “Marriage” IS WHAT IT IS! You can’t keep running to the courts every time you want to distort reality to legally legitimize your lifestyle!
A ray of sunlight in a world of clouds. Something good did happen in California’s Election.
This is not my beautiful state.
FWIW, for anyone that is interested, the legal argument is indeed a fascinating one and is as follows:
The suit claims that a proposition or constitutional amendment can not strip a fundamental right from an identifiable group (in this case, gays). The analogy used is that it would obviously be unconstitutional to strip the right of free speech from women only.
What makes the CA case unique from other states where marriage amendments have passed is that the CA Supreme Court has already claimed that gays DO have this fundamental right.
I haven’t read any of the pleadings, and will report when I do, but, well, the argument, on first blush, certainly has a chance of overturning Prop 8. how much of a chance? no clue at this point.
I'm no lawyer, but I can't see how you can have a legal challenge unless it is about the process under which the proposition won.
Does anybody know if there is a basis there?
If you hear of the legal angle being used to challene Prop 8, please let us know. The previous approach was to show a similar measure was unconstitutional (we’re talking state constitution here). But since Prop 8 will now be a constitutional amendment when election results are certified, then this argument won’t work.
So the only ideas I could suggest is that they will challenge this at the Federal level. But I can’t believe that the Federal Judiciary will get involved on this. I suppose it is possible, but the US Supreme Court, in its present form would surely rule this issue is within a state’s right.
Possibly the legal approach would be to challenge some small aspect of how the measure was drafted, in case the process had a flaw in some way. I would think this is very thin, but we have bad judges everywhere.
Have you seen a recent photo of Byrne? He has white hair, white eyebrows, dresses in all white. Very bizarre look.
Are the tying this to the Federal Constitution. Maybe the 14th Amendment?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
To see where tis is heading, all you have to do is look at the numbers:
Vote by Age, Prop 8
Yes No
18-29 (20%) 39 61
30-44 (28%) 55 45
45-64 (36%) 54 46
65+ (15%) 61 39
Vote by Age, 2008 Presidential
Dem Rep
8-29 (20%) 66 32
30-44 (28%) 52 46
45-64 (36%) 50 49
65+ (15%) 45 53
IMO, it’s poor strategy to pursue short term tactical success in return for long term strategic failure.
I didn’t see your post when I asked. The claim in the suit makes sense in conversation, but unless there is a specific clause in the constitution with which it conflicts, I don’t see how a constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional be definition.
I’m also not convinced that state-recognized marriage is actually a “fundamental right” in the same way life and political speech might be. My neighbor doesn’t have the fundamental right to demand the state recognize a wedding to two other citizens, nor to his dog.
Never underestimate the possibility of a judge using outcome-seeking reasoning to nullify this measure.
No, I haven’t seen that.
Me and my GF walked out last night after the defeat and 2 blocks away was the GLAAD building called the Village in Hollywood. I could actually hear people CRYING inside (people is code for gays). At least I didn’t cry when BO won last night..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.