Re: Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court
Lawrence Akutagawa
"SordoT" <sor...@prolefeed.org> wrote in message
news:6r7b66F...@mid.individual.net...
> Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court
>
> 3:07 PM, December 19, 2008
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html
>
> Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry
> into President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue
> the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the
> California Supreme Court.
>
> Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of
> Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending
> the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California
> voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages
> performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.
>
> The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay
> rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
>
> Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional
> revision instead of a more limited amendment.
>
> A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a
> two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
> Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case
> poses a series of provocative legal challenges.
>
> The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who
> opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state's laws,
> must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called
> upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to
> "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California."
>
> But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex
> marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.
>
> Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the
> proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed
> its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer
> valid. Brown's briefs are due later today.
>
> The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.
>
What this article does not discuss is the fact that Jerry Brown - who (as
the article correctly discusses) as California Attorney General is legally
bound to defend Prop 8 before the court - has in fact come out asking the
court to invalidate Prop 8.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/20/MN6514RNVU.DTL&hw=jerry+brown+prop&sn=001&sc=1000
short url - http://tinyurl.com/7jovvg
I find it fascinating that Brown did not recuse himself because of the
obvious conflict of interest in which he finds himself and which he himself
created...particulalry given his thinly veiled governorship aspirations.
Of course, the other issue of keen interest is that of the court. It has
already back in May 2008 invalidated the initiative based statute against
gay marriage (Prop 22, in 2000, passed with 61% approval).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/ That invalidation
basically resulted in Prop 8, which is a constitutional amendment rather
than the statute which Prop 22 was. The gay marriage attribute
notwithstanding, the underlying issue is that of the court vis a vis the
people's will. The last time this conflict arose in California was on the
death penalty issue. The court opposed it, whereupon the Chief Justice Rose
Bird and several of like mind found themselves voted out of the court by the
people. http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/12/is-a-rose-bird.html
JC
"Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ncv3l.6552$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
GIVE A TINKERS DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE LAW!!!!
Werner
> "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > short url -http://tinyurl.com/7jovvg
>
> > I find it fascinating that Brown did not recuse himself because of
> > the obvious conflict of interest in which he finds himself and which
> > he himself created...particulalry given his thinly veiled
> > governorship aspirations.
>
> > Of course, the other issue of keen interest is that of the court.
> > It has already back in May 2008 invalidated the initiative based
> > statute against gay marriage (Prop 22, in 2000, passed with 61%
> > That invalidation basically resulted in Prop 8, which is a
> > constitutional amendment rather than the statute which Prop 22 was.
> > The gay marriage attribute notwithstanding, the underlying issue is
> > that of the court vis a vis the people's will. The last time this
> > conflict arose in California was on the death penalty issue. The
> > court opposed it, whereupon the Chief Justice Rose Bird and several
> > of like mind found themselves voted out of the court by the people.
> >http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/12/is-a-rose-bird.html
>
> If you haven't figured it out by now you never will. POLITICIANS DON'T
> GIVE A TINKERS DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE LAW!!!!
I see no reason why laws should limit personal relationships between
consenting adults. Nothing I am aware of in the Constitution allows
for this. Gay people are still people.
Our civil liberties were slipping away long before Patriot Act
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=58890
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/PatriotAct.shtml
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Amerika.shtml
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/WhatHappened.shtml
JC
"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:afba7f1f-ed0f-498c...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
So, if your Mom was having a bad day and told your Dad she wished he
would just kill her and he says okay and does, you're okay with that.
You're one mixed up fellow.
As for reasons, there doesn't need to be a reason, just that a
majority of the citizens agree. That's what the constitution says.
Every law and legal decision is based on a majority vote. And, anyone
that can garner a majority of the people to side with them, can change
that process to a simple dictatorial one.
rick++
Werner
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
A majority doesn't make something constitutional. The ideas was about
inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if
you recall.
JC
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba7ea51b-0e83-4048...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>I guess you are grateful then!
>
I don't know who you address your responses to, but until you figure
out how to do so properly, you're not going to take up space on my
computer.
PLONK
JC
Really? Then how come it took a majority of the states to ratify the
constitution? Right about now you might want to stop diggin.
Werner
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
>
> A majority doesn't make something constitutional.
>
> Really? Then how come it took a majority of the states to ratify the
> constitution? Right about now you might want to stop diggin.
Actually, I believe it took all the states to ratify. But there are
amendments that can be ratified by a majority of states, A state law
is not an amendment. Nor is a state a majority of states.
Even when the constitution is legally changed people sometimes ignore
the change as in the Prohibition amendment. Laws have their limits
because people have their limits to obedience.
JC
So, what you're saying is that laws are NOT passed by majority vote???
Go ahead, keep diggin if you wish.
Werner
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:248dcb7d-3b92-48c3...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 3:01 pm, "JC" <dontbot...@imouttatown.net> wrote:
>
> > "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > A majority doesn't make something constitutional.
>
> > Really? Then how come it took a majority of the states to ratify the
> > constitution? Right about now you might want to stop diggin.
>
> Actually, I believe it took all the states to ratify. But there are
> amendments that can be ratified by a majority of states, A state law
> is not an amendment. Nor is a state a majority of states.
>
> Even when the constitution is legally changed people sometimes ignore
> the change as in the Prohibition amendment. Laws have their limits
> because people have their limits to obedience.
>
> So, what you're saying is that laws are NOT passed by majority vote???
> Go ahead, keep diggin if you wish.
You see what you want to see. My position is majority decree does not
necessarily equate to a constitutional decree.
JC
Well, then, I suggest a séance in order for you and the founders to
bring the constitution more in line with your position.
As for my question about laws and majority votes, it was a trick
question and I guess it just went right over your head. So, let me
answer it for you, not that it will make any difference to you but
here goes.
Article I Section 1 of our constitution says that "All legislative
powers herin granted shall be VESTED in a CONGRESS of the United
States".
That means the power can NOT be delegated to anyone or any other
entity. Yet, every day, we have bureaucracies making rules and laws
and nobody raises so much as a whimper. We just roll over like little
puppies hoping for a rub on the belly.
I'm currently reading a book "A nation of Sheep" by a judge named
Napolitano, or something like that, and I gotta tell ya, we need more
judges like that fellow on the Supreme Court. I've never read a book
that puts it more succinctly how this country is going to hell in a
hurry.
kevinob...@gmail.com
I voted "Yes" on Proposition 8, but in no way would I ever agree
that the so-called marriages that were performed during the period it
was legal in California should be invalidated or nullified. Those who
are already married cannot demand that my church and pastor perform a
wedding for them under threat of litigation regardless of the conflict
with my values and those of others who attend the same church, so
there is no reason to take from them the right they had for that short
time. In California law we have a prohibition against ex post facto
laws, and this is the perfect application for that statute. Sadly
there are many under the mistaken impression that this was a way to
strike back at expanding gay rights. Wrong-o my uneducated friend.
Nothing in the technical sense has changed. Gays still have their
right to civil union and registered domestic partnerships and all the
rights and benefits granted under laws, ordinances and policies that
go with them. They have lost nothing.
They can still have their commitment ceremonies and even call them
a marriage, but they are not legally recognized with the same word.
They just can no longer force their choices upon society by shopping
around for activist judges who feel my moral convictions are wrong.
I, like every person I have spoken with, do not care what goes on
between two consenting adults behind closed doors. Just don't demand
that I tell my children it is morally appropriate that my church has
to solemnize a relationship at the point of a litigious pen. Sadly,
we now have Gloria Allred giving people false hope and demanding that
the proposition be once again overturned. That cannot happen now.
The judges involved overturned the previous will of the people
because it was "unconstitutional." Now the Constitution itself has
been changed through codified democracy and the will of the people
stands firm. She can try the tired 14th Amendment suit against our
entire State Constitution and the whole states rights thing, but if
the United States Supreme Court were to decide in her favor it would
set a national precedent and completely gut what democracy is all
about, leaving every state in the country vulnerable to being
legislated from one court in Washington D.C. Not likely. Attorney
General Gerry Brown has already said he will defend the proposition.
Proposition 8 followed the law, now everyone else must too. That
especially includes barring any attempts to legislate after the fact
and take away what individuals already have!
Devil.Handsome
shitheads,
so what do you assholes plan to ban next ?
bi-racial marriage ?
abortion ?
alcohol ?
dancing?
bikinis?
jews?
it's the 21st century goobers,
you'll push until the supreme court has no choice but to
eliminate what little power you have left
<kevinob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf5bc685-ea71-4fc2...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Thumper
wrote:
> Dear Editor,
>
> I voted "Yes" on Proposition 8, but in no way would I ever agree
>that the so-called marriages that were performed during the period it
>was legal in California should be invalidated or nullified. Those who
>are already married cannot demand that my church and pastor perform a
>wedding for them under threat of litigation regardless of the conflict
>with my values and those of others who attend the same church, so
>there is no reason to take from them the right they had for that short
>time. In California law we have a prohibition against ex post facto
>laws, and this is the perfect application for that statute. Sadly
>there are many under the mistaken impression that this was a way to
>strike back at expanding gay rights. Wrong-o my uneducated friend.
>Nothing in the technical sense has changed. Gays still have their
>right to civil union and registered domestic partnerships and all the
>rights and benefits granted under laws, ordinances and policies that
>go with them. They have lost nothing.
>
> They can still have their commitment ceremonies and even call them
>a marriage, but they are not legally recognized with the same word.
>They just can no longer force their choices upon society by shopping
>around for activist judges who feel my moral convictions are wrong.
>I, like every person I have spoken with, do not care what goes on
>between two consenting adults behind closed doors. Just don't demand
>that I tell my children it is morally appropriate that my church has
>to solemnize a relationship at the point of a litigious pen.
Legalizing same sex marriage has NEVER had any effect on you or your
church.
No church has to recognize any marriage. Don't be so ignorant.
Thumper
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
And also, despite Connie's incurable willful ignorance about
it, there is nothing but marriage in California that confers the
same rights as marriage.
As to forcing this gentleman's church to marry people, that's
as groundless as saying a rabbi can be forced to perform a
Christian marriage, or a Catholic Priest a protestant marriage
or Jewish marriage.
What gay person, or what fair-minded person of any kind,
would want anything to do with such a church or such a
religion as he apparently espouses anyway, that among its
other sins apparently has no problem feeding him lies so as
to spread its bigotry among all people it can reach.
<snip>