San Jose Mercury News: California gay marriage ban struck down, appeals court cites equal rights

[Kilmer17]

It's an overstatement by folks explaining the decision. Principles of judicial restraint dictate deciding a case on the narrowest grounds possible, and not using a narrow fact situation (like this one) as a springboard to rule on a broad issue. Which would be "judicial activism" and would be likely to lead to a reversal, at least in part

On the other hand, let's be realistic. Judges don't like being overturned on appeal. So of course that mindset of considering what might happen on appeal always lurks in the background. But I don't think it's a serious problem in most instances.

Fair points, and I agree.

However, if the 9th decided how they were going to rule, and then crafted their opinion with an eye towards the makeup of the SCOTUS, that's a problem. It appears that is the way some are claiming they acted. If that wasnt the intent of the posters, mea culpa.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Fair points, and I agree.

However, if the 9th decided how they were going to rule, and then crafted their opinion with an eye towards the makeup of the SCOTUS, that's a problem. It appears that is the way some are claiming they acted. If that wasnt the intent of the posters, mea culpa.

SCOTUS can do what they want. But there's nothing wrong with an appellate court intentionally writing a narrow decision so that a whole new bag of worms doesn't have to be opened. In fact, that's sorta what they are supposed to do.

[Zguy28]

Which homosexuality is icky? Gay sex? Is lesbian sex icky? Heterosexual sex? If there is a difference in your answers, then you are being hypcritical, because sexual practices can be part of all three. And as far as homosexuality being a sin, I don't believe that although my family and society has tried to tell me that. Sin is a concept that doesn't exist in my belief system.

Infanticide is the death of born children, and I'll agree with you on that. Up until a live birth, it's the woman's body.

Ignoring the truth doesn't make it go away. But anyway...

---------- Post added February-9th-2012 at 03:08 PM ----------

Seemed like a good time for this pic, courtesy George Takei:

That would be funny if it wasn't the epitome of ignorance.

[LadySkinsFan]

Ignoring the truth doesn't make it go away. But anyway...

---------- Post added February-9th-2012 at 03:08 PM ----------

That would be funny if it wasn't the epitome of ignorance.

Your truth, not mine. And your rights stop at my front door, just as my rights stop at your front door. No religion has the right to tell me how to live my life and to interfere with my fundamental rights.

[Kilmer17]

SCOTUS can do what they want. But there's nothing wrong with an appellate court intentionally writing a narrow decision so that a whole new bag of worms doesn't have to be opened. In fact, that's sorta what they are supposed to do.

That's not the same thing as saying they crafted it in a way that the SCOTUS wont touch it. Which implies they know the SCOTUS will overturn their ruling, And are doing whatever they can to defend their position, which they already realize is wrong.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's not the same thing as saying they crafted it in a way that the SCOTUS wont touch it. Which implies they know the SCOTUS will overturn their ruling, And are doing whatever they can to defend their position, which they already realize is wrong.

That's not what anyone meant. They meant that they intentionally didn't overreach. They didn't intend to give SCOTUS a reason to overturn them. They tried to get it right. You are sorta reading into that.

[Kilmer17]

That's not what anyone meant. They meant that they intentionally didn't overreach. They didn't intend to give SCOTUS a reason to overturn them. They tried to get it right. You are sorta reading into that.

Ok. Jumped the gun I guess. But I reserve the right to come back with vitriol.

[Jumbo]

Ok. Jumped the gun I guess. But I reserve the right to come back with vitriol.

I have a hair-trigger reactionary sledgehammer, heavily weighted in one direction, that I got just for posting in the tailgate. You can borrow it if you want, whenever Larry gives it back. It's the silver-plated Paris Hilton Memorial Edition---just about everyone's used it.

[Larry]

I have a hair-trigger reactionary sledgehammer, heavily weighted in one direction, that I got just for posting in the tailgate. You can borrow it if you want, whenever Larry gives it back. It's the silver-plated Paris Hilton Memorial Edition---just about everyone's used it.

Cold, dead, fingers.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok. Jumped the gun I guess. But I reserve the right to come back with vitriol.

No worries. If someone lends more credence to your reservations, feel free to blast me on here.

[Hubbs]

Is that a serious statement or were you joking? I don't know if the SC is going to take it up, but it sounds like the 9th Cir. did what they could to keep it out of the SC.

No, dead serious. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, I'm just repeating what I heard a couple lawyers say on TV when talking about the case. They said they disagreed with those who were saying that the 9th Circuit tried to make the case unattractive to the SC, and actually thought the narrowness of the decision would appeal to the SC.

[Predicto]

No, dead serious. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, I'm just repeating what I heard a couple lawyers say on TV when talking about the case. They said they disagreed with those who were saying that the 9th Circuit tried to make the case unattractive to the SC, and actually thought the narrowness of the decision would appeal to the SC.

I'm an expert on the Supreme Court and all of the TV pundits are blowing smoke up people's butts when they say they know why an appellate court crafts its decisions exactly the way they do. They have no idea what went on, and every case is different.

[IHOPSkins]

........"No limits" is not on the table..............

But limits government has is....lets remember what you said...shall we?

........Marriage certainly can be limited to a man and woman... by the church. But not by government -- not by any more than it can be limited to white person and white person.......

Hummmmmm so we can discus "Limiting government"....AND introduce Race....but not Polygamy?

Must be fun to limit the discussion to your own personal preference....or should I say Lifestyle choice?...Just kidding :pfft:

The Limits goverment has in defining marriage is the CORE of this argument.

DOMA is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

One related question is....Should government be able to limit marriage to ANY TWO people?

.........So let's stop pretending that it is, and keep our seats at the grown-up table.

Please take a seat :pfft:

[mjah]

But limits government has is....lets remember what you said...shall we?

Hummmmmm so we can discus "Limiting government"....AND introduce Race....but not Polygamy?

One related question is....Should government be able to limit marriage to ANY TWO people?

Not sure why you're having trouble understanding this. I suspect it's deliberate on your part.

You referred to the gay marriage issue as being reflective of a NO LIMITS policy on marriage. NO LIMITS is the phrase you used. You were wrong about that, and you continue to be wrong about it. You conflated gay marriage with the idea that there are NO LIMITS whatsoever placed on the Federal definition of marriage. That's simply incorrect, unsuppportable, and echoes a commonly seen so-called "conservative" attempt to re-frame equal rights as a throwing-open of the doors to any crazy thing you can think of (hence your words, NO LIMITS).

If you want to argue that someday, maybe the popular will is going to allow polygamy under the banner of equal rights, then I agree with you. Maybe it will. Someday. And maybe it won't. Maybe, IHOP, you can point me in the direction of the major national movement that either exists or is brewing to legalize polygamy, because somehow I fail to see one at this time or on the horizon. I'd welcome it because we have a nice big house and a couple of very desirable ladies in my community seem have their eyes on me. But again, that does not match your claim of NO LIMITS.

NO LIMITS would run afoul of all kinds of protections that are not going to go away. One major protection for you to stop and consider, in case you retread the standard next step of this ineffective old NO LIMITS argument by retreating from polygamy to something more nefarious like objects / animals / little kids, is the principle of legal consent. Another to consider, in case you weren't planning to go that way and planned instead to stick with polygamy (another bad move), is the age-old and time-honored principle of balancing the needs of the society against the rights of the individual. If a polygamy case came up before the Supreme Court right now, on what grounds would it be decided against the complainant? Do you doubt that it would be? Ask yourself how and when you think that's going to change, and please share it here.

Again: For those who want to discuss the contemporary marriage issue as what it is -- and not the made-up bugaboo they wish it could be to make their objections more solidly grounded -- there is a seat available here at the adult table. But pretending that any of this has anything to do with NO LIMITS, that ineffective fearmongering, only guarantees a meal of chicken nuggets and sippy-cup milk with the drooling munchkins. Sorry IHOP.

[Hubbs]

I'm an expert on the Supreme Court and all of the TV pundits are blowing smoke up people's butts when they say they know why an appellate court crafts its decisions exactly the way they do. They have no idea what went on, and every case is different.

I'll take your word on it. That said, I still hope that the Supreme Court takes this case, based on how my again admittedly limited brain thinks the court will rule. (Unless you say I'm wrong on that one too. )

[Larry]

I'll take your word on it. That said, I still hope that the Supreme Court takes this case, based on how my again admittedly limited brain thinks the court will rule. (Unless you say I'm wrong on that one too. )

Observing that this particular Supreme Court has recently ruled that "freedom of speech" means that corporations can anonymously give buckets of cash to politicians, and that the same "freedom of speech" means that the government can't block minors from purchasing graphic depiction of rape. (Not the freedom of speech from the publishers of said depictions, but freedom of speech of the minors.)

Me, I have to confess that I have no clue what this Supreme Court would do with this case. (But in the words of Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this".)

[LadySkinsFan]

My question is: can corporations get married, now that they are declared persons? And can they execute a corporation? How does one determine the sex of a corporation anyway?

Geez, minors can view porn but adults of the same sex cannot get married. I mean, it's just ridiculous.

[mjah]

My question is: can corporations get married, now that they are declared persons?

I considered asking the same question earlier. Why can't corporations vote? Why can't they run for office, as one corporation pretended to do in MD a couple of years ago? Why can't Texas stick poisoned needles into their arms or otherwise sentence them to death upon conviction by a jury of peers and sentencing by a judge? Speaking of which, why can't they get called for jury duty, be sequestered for months, and serve next to actual humans? And indeed, why can't they get married?

To quote a person who has been receiving some substantial media attention of late, "Corporations are people, my friend." Why can't they get married?

We need an Amendment.

[ACW]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/you-may-now-get-gay-married-in-washingto

Gay marriage now legal in Washington

Slowly the tide is turning.

[JMS]

California Supreme Court did make it legal. Then the right wing decided to make a fundamental right into a referendum for a majority vote. Then the Mormon big dollars waged a fear campaign and a fundamental right was taken away from the people.

If it can happen to same sex marriage, it can happen to any of our rights. We need to fight to keep fundamental rights away from majority voter referendum.

Actually I believe there was a Law passed that legalized it.... Then a referendum was put forward to repeal the law where the majority of California's people voted to use there state constitution to deny Gay's this right... Then the California supreme court said you can't use the constitution to deny a right to a minority group, as the entire reason for having a constitution is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. America being a Republic an all. not a Democracy.

While throwing out the popular referendum, the California court left a moratorium on gay marriage in place pending appeal.

---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 12:34 PM ----------

My question is: can corporations get married, now that they are declared persons? And can they execute a corporation? How does one determine the sex of a corporation anyway?

Geez, minors can view porn but adults of the same sex cannot get married. I mean, it's just ridiculous.

My question is how do you tell if corporations are male or female, and if you can't tell would their mergers be considered an illegal act without a gay marrage law?

---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 12:41 PM ----------

I'll take your word on it. That said, I still hope that the Supreme Court takes this case, based on how my again admittedly limited brain thinks the court will rule. (Unless you say I'm wrong on that one too. )

The lower court wrote this "limited" ruling aimed at Supreme Court Justice Kennedy who will likely be the swing vote if the supreme court hears this case. Proposition 8, violated the Constitution not because there is a right to gay marriage, but because it took away the equal right to the institution of marriage that gay Californians briefly held under state law before Proposition 8 was passed. The upshot is that while gay-rights advocates should rightly be happy with the decision, it isn't the major legal breakthrough that some hoped it would be. The Supreme Court could uphold the circuit judges' position without making same- sex marriage legal across the United States.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 9th Circuit majority, chose not to embrace the broad ruling handed down by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker -- that same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry, period. Instead, Reinhardt ruled narrowly that Prop 8, which passed by ballot referendum in 2010, violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because it took away, without any rational reason, the right to marry that the California Supreme Court had guaranteed to the state's gay and lesbian citizens earlier that year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/gay-marriage-ruling-justice-kennedy-appeal-9th-circuit_n_1268676.html