The first half of the hearing focused on standing. The same-sex marriage opponents argued that, as proponents of the Prop 8 ballot initiative, they have standing in the case, although according to Mercury News, a lawyer offered no case precedent for that.
Judge Randy Smith, the most conservative of the three judges, suggested the panel ask the California Supreme Court for an opinion as to whether they have standing. Smith argued, according to the L.A. Times, that Schwarzenegger and Brown had effectively vetoed the proposition by not appealing the case -- something they have no authority to do.
The second half focused on the constitutionality of the ban, with both sides making familiar arguments. Same-sex marriage opponents argued that the state has a "rational basis" on which to outlaw same-sex marriage because marriage is basically a vehicle for procreation.
Same-sex marriage supporters, lead by Ted Olson, argued that it's a civil rights issue and that sexuality is not a choice.
Other legal questions in the case include whether the deputy clerk of Imperial County has the standing to appeal the district courts ruling, and whether that ruling affects all of California or just the two counties where the two plaintiff-couples tried to get marriage licenses.
Standing question aside, marriage is a vehicle for procreation? That's the best argument you can make against gay marriage? Are we legislating now that only married couples can produce children and have to do so? That's the most asinine argument I've heard. How does allowing same-sex marriage prevent other marriages from procreation? Condom commando raids? Drive-by IUD implantation?
Loving v. Virginia should have settled this question years ago. There's just no rational, legal reason to uphold the ban.
Posts
11 comments:
There's just no rational, legal reason to uphold the ban.
Sure there is. Baker v. Nelson. Look it up instead of reading lefty trash.
Baker v. Nelson was a punt by the Supreme Court. This case will not be.
But hey, if the Supreme Court punts again and fails to hear it, California gets gay marriage.
Loving v. Virginia: http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/2006/06/celebrate_lovin.html
Baker v. Nelson was a punt by the Supreme Court.
No it wasn't. The right never existed. The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution by refusing to hear the case.
This case will not be.
I have to agree with you on that; The Supreme Court will hear it. Considering the make-up of the Court (the four leftists and one squish, Kennedy, who ruled with the majority in Lawrence), they'll ignore the Constitution by upholding Walker's ruling and creating a "right" that never existed before with their own 5-4 ruling.
JoyfulA, I've read Loving. It doesn't apply to this case.
And God knows, legally vesting the individual with new rights is HORRIBLY unlibertarian!
"Oh," "I" "forgot" to "thank you" for "sharing the link" to "your" "online" "'scare quotes'" "store!"
Lowkey:
And God knows, legally vesting the individual with new rights is HORRIBLY unlibertarian!
Tell me, who is creating these new "rights"? Is it someone authorized to do so under the Constitution?
Crap, have I been reading the wrong Constitution again? Let's see heeeere:
*dons bifocals*
"Article III, Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."
*pulls bifocals from face, dramatically*
GODDAMNIT, who keeps slipping this fake constitution into the cover of my real one?!
Hmmm...apparently your bifocals contain only one set of quotes. It doesn't say judges have the power to create laws or rights, although that has frequently happened, as in the Prop 8 case. Try bifocals that say this also:
Article I, Section 1:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..."
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary to propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution..."
Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You need new glasses.
Apparently! I'm reading the National Archive's copy of the Constitution now, and I STILL can't see the clause that says California's Constitution is immune to federal judicial review. Or the Amendment that repealed the Fourteenth Amendment. Gads, these glasses really are worthless.
*toss*
And now I can't even see you!
Steve? Steeeeeve?!
HALP! I'ma skeered!
Post a Comment