Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

California Supreme court orders SF to stop

California LGBT Same Sex Marriage Supreme Court Injunction

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 shambalayogi

shambalayogi

    Fan of Many Things

  • Islander
  • 2,448 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:16 AM

MuseZack, on Mar 12 2004, 05:19 AM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 12 2004, 05:06 AM, said:

^

Thanks for deciphering the legalese, Lil! :D.

And yeah, sounds fun. Can't wait to see this come to trial.
While it's fascinating watching the legal wrangling and how fast the issue is moving, I can't help but empathize with the very real people whose lives are being affected by this.  It had to be heartbreaking for the couples who thought they could have their relationships recognized by the state to have those hopes dashed.

http://www.cnn.com/2...rnia/index.html

Didn't these couples know that there was the risk that the ceremonines were NOT LEGAL when they did this?? I'm sorry it can't be legal for them but they all knew it wasn't legal when they did it.   I'm not picking on this issue in particular it's just that I deal with people all the time who want the law to be differenet than it is.  Saying that its'a shame that something isn't legal and wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

Still the public demonstration that the couple made by going through the ceremonies may help get the movement along the way to make gay marriages legal.

I work with someone who thought about flying up there to get married but he and his partner decided to see if it doesn't become legal in the near future. He said it would have been a nice ceremoney and symbol but wouldn't be legal in California or in Arizona.

Edited by shambalayogi, 12 March 2004 - 11:25 AM.

Shamba,
I Trust SNAPE!  so .. he better be loyal!
I Knew Where NZ was before LOTR!
Frodo Lives! Long Live the King!
It may not be a time of myth and legend, but it's
definitely a time for heroes and heroines!
Shambalayogi's Retreat
Tulsa Trek Expo
Comic Con In 2008
Learn About Peak Oil

#22 shambalayogi

shambalayogi

    Fan of Many Things

  • Islander
  • 2,448 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:20 AM

Lil, thanks for the explanation er, but I don't think I understand most of your explanation all that well!  :lol:
Shamba,
I Trust SNAPE!  so .. he better be loyal!
I Knew Where NZ was before LOTR!
Frodo Lives! Long Live the King!
It may not be a time of myth and legend, but it's
definitely a time for heroes and heroines!
Shambalayogi's Retreat
Tulsa Trek Expo
Comic Con In 2008
Learn About Peak Oil

#23 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:39 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 11 2004, 10:39 PM, said:

What I think is most significant in this scenario is that the Court took the opportunity to flex its muscles while the Attorney General balked.  Interesting in terms of checks and balances and the like.
Is the Attorney General an elected position in Calif., or an appointed position? If elected, no wonder the AG balked. Taking a stand might affect one's reelection bid.  :angel:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:42 AM

shambalayogi, on Mar 12 2004, 10:14 AM, said:

Didn't these couples know that there was the risk that the ceremonines were NOT LEGAL when they did this??
Yes. The "marriage" licenses that were issued all had a disclaimer on them warning people that they may not be valid. And at $85.00 each, it led me to believe that this was all about raising revenue for the City of SF.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:45 AM

okay.  What happened is that the court was petitioned and asked to at a minimum issue and order telling the mayor et al to show the court why these marriages should not be ruled illegal and telling them to stop the ceremonies pending a hearing on the issue.  This kind of relief is considered "extraordinary" (as a legal term of art) and the court will not issue such an order unless the party seeking it demonstrates (among other things) that it is likely to succeed on the merits.  This means that the moving party pretty much has to make their legal argument pretty convincing to even get the court to issue this kind of preliminary relief (think of it as a preliminary injunction).  The fact that the court issued this order (called an Order to Show Cause) should mean that the court is convinced that the moving party has made a pretty strong showing.  It's no guarantee and now both parties will get to make their arguments before the court rules.  The added element here is that this is a show of judicial strength.  The court could have said that the matter should just be left to the legislature.  Instead they're taking the initiative and saying that THEY will decide whether the initiative so overwhelmingly passed into law in this state is legal.  It's fascinating.  It may end up being a win for anti gay marriage people but the irony is that many of those same people are also anti active judiciary...
Posted Image

#26 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:57 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 12 2004, 10:43 AM, said:

The fact that the court issued this order (called an Order to Show Cause) should mean that the court is convinced that the moving party has made a pretty strong showing.
But as I understand it, that's not up to the court to decide until the movant(s) make their case. In other words, although it's up to the movant(s) to prove, the courts have already declared it proven. :wacko:

Quote

It's fascinating.  It may end up being a win for anti gay marriage people but the irony is that many of those same people are also anti active judiciary...

Or it may end up being a win for gay marriage, and simply verify the concerns of those who fear judicial activism.

Here in Wisconsin there's an amendment to the State Constitution being debated right now that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. While gay marriage is currently outlawed in the state, legislators fear that an activist judge could rule it unconstitutional, hence this attempt to get it into the constitution.

Should this amendment pass both houses, it'll end up on the general ballot for the people to decide. Democracy of the people by the people and for the people. Imagine that.

Edited by Drew, 12 March 2004 - 11:58 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:04 PM

^   Do you think for one moment that a majority of  VOTERS would have outlawed segregation? LOLOL!  Not a chance Drew.  What about discrimination based on race?  Or gender?  Good thing we have a judiciary that takes care of minorities.  That's why why we don't do things in this country by simple head count.  Imagine that.  :p
Posted Image

#28 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:07 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 12 2004, 11:02 AM, said:

^   Do you think for one moment that a majority of  VOTERS would have outlawed segregation? LOLOL!  Not a chance Drew.  What about discrimination based on race?  Or gender?  Good thing we have a judiciary that takes care of minorities.  That's why why we don't do things in this country by simple head count.  Imagine that.  :p
Ah, Lil! While I understand the point you are trying to make, you know what I think about comparing gay people to racial minorities, so let's not rehash an old thread.   :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#29 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 03:10 PM

I do have a question. If this invalidates the ballot inistives concept what else is going to be challenged. I mean the people voted to prevent illegals from getting access to state services except in emergancy circumstances.  Would this be reversed?

#30 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 03:38 PM

G1223, on Mar 12 2004, 02:08 PM, said:

I do have a question. If this invalidates the ballot inistives concept what else is going to be challenged. I mean the people voted to prevent illegals from getting access to state services except in emergancy circumstances.  Would this be reversed?
I thought Bush was well on his way to reversing a lot of that anyway.  :angel:

But it's a good question. How many other decisions of the people will get overturned by courts who feel that they know better. Tyranny of the minority, indeed.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#31 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 03:42 PM

The one about property tax will likely be first. I never knew of a state could use more tax dollars and with no new limits on how to get it.

#32 shambalayogi

shambalayogi

    Fan of Many Things

  • Islander
  • 2,448 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 03:46 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 12 2004, 04:43 PM, said:

okay.  this order (called an Order to Show Cause) should mean that the court is convinced that the moving party has made a pretty strong showing.  It's no guarantee and now both parties will get to make their arguments before the court rules.  The added element here is that this is a show of judicial strength.  The court could have said that the matter should just be left to the legislature.  Instead they're taking the initiative and saying that THEY will decide whether the initiative so overwhelmingly passed into law in this state is legal.  It's fascinating.  It may end up being a win for anti gay marriage people but the irony is that many of those same people are also anti active judiciary...
THANK YOU!!!  :wow:


I didn't know what an OSC was!  That and what you said in this post makes it very clear to me what's happening.  You're right that it's fascinating--and wierd, I think--that the anti gay people are using the courts to decide something when they don't like the courts deciding such things.
Shamba,
I Trust SNAPE!  so .. he better be loyal!
I Knew Where NZ was before LOTR!
Frodo Lives! Long Live the King!
It may not be a time of myth and legend, but it's
definitely a time for heroes and heroines!
Shambalayogi's Retreat
Tulsa Trek Expo
Comic Con In 2008
Learn About Peak Oil

#33 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 04:11 PM

shambalayogi, on Mar 12 2004, 02:44 PM, said:

You're right that it's fascinating--and wierd, I think--that the anti gay people are using the courts to decide something when they don't like the courts deciding such things.
Erm . . . I understand that both sides of the issue are glad it's finally going to court. But I don't think anyone's "using" the courts.

What bothers me is that this issue had already been decided by a recent vote of the people. And the court has decided that the people are wrong and they must take matters into their own hands, while apparently forgetting that they are members of the judiciary, not legislators.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#34 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 04:18 PM

Drew, on Mar 12 2004, 01:09 PM, said:

And the court has decided that the people are wrong and they must take matters into their own hands, while apparently forgetting that they are members of the judiciary, not legislators.
Well if you're going to continue to raise this issue then I'm going to keep raising the comparisons with civil rights decisions.  :p
Posted Image

#35 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 04:22 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 12 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

Drew, on Mar 12 2004, 01:09 PM, said:

And the court has decided that the people are wrong and they must take matters into their own hands, while apparently forgetting that they are members of the judiciary, not legislators.
Well if you're going to continue to raise this issue then I'm going to keep raising the comparisons with civil rights decisions.  :p
Which still doesn't account for the fact that members of the judiciary are not legislators.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#36 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 04:25 PM

I mean, let's reverse it. Let's say that the people of California overwhelmingly voted to legalize gay marriage. And then let's say that a bunch of conservatives get appointed to the judiciary (assuming that the Democrats stop filibustering enough to let such a thing happen). Then let's say that these judges decided that the people's vote was wrong, and they overturn it and declare gay marriages illegal.

Do you think you'd be a little annoyed by judicial activism then? If so, then you can see my concern.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#37 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 04:27 PM

Let's be fair here.  The way that Newsom is going about it calls for the intervention of a court as standard.  After all the legislature *has* spoken on this matter.  Even if the court decides that it is the power behind this decision, it's still a better precedent for this decision to go to the side of upholding the law than for judicial activists to tear down a properly executed law.  People against judicial activism may not like the way it's being phrased, but if judicial "activists" asserted their "activism" by agreeing with the law in most cases, then I don't think people would have as much trouble with the concept.

In other words, if the judge rules for the law, they are simply working in the framework of the law.  If the judge overrides the law on the basis of the constitution, then they could be accused of actually legislating, as they are basically voting down a law, and frequently add in verbiage that constrains legislatures from legislating without doing something like creating an amendment.  

That's the real problem with judicial activism.  It may seem silly or unwarranted to people that actual amemdments are being proposed for something like marriage, but note that this is generally *after* the opponents of gay "marriage" tried to use the standard channels only to have laws executed by properly elected representatives stricken down by small groups of jurists.  That's simply not particularly democratic, as much as you might agree or disagree with the law itself.  The amendment process was meant to be a last resort sort of thing, but I don't think anyone really understood the scope of judicial activism when the constitutions were written.  It's one of the biggest flaws that exists in our system.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#38 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 04:30 PM

Meh.  The California Supreme Court a few years ago issued a decision in an age discrimination case that basically made it impossible to win because the ruling was that it was a valid defense in an age case if the employer could prove that the motive for the employment action was to save money.  (Duh).  Well um, the CA legislature hated that decision and soon amended the FEHA to specifically say that economic motivation is not a defense.  They even specifically named the case they were in effect overturning.  

Checks and balances Drew.  It's all about checks and balances.
Posted Image

#39 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 10:45 PM

MuseZack, on Mar 11 2004, 10:19 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 12 2004, 05:06 AM, said:

^

Thanks for deciphering the legalese, Lil! :D.

And yeah, sounds fun. Can't wait to see this come to trial.
While it's fascinating watching the legal wrangling and how fast the issue is moving, I can't help but empathize with the very real people whose lives are being affected by this.  It had to be heartbreaking for the couples who thought they could have their relationships recognized by the state to have those hopes dashed.

http://www.cnn.com/2...rnia/index.html
No kidding. Like the ones whose families flew in from all over the place, they got all dressed up, took their kids  and headed downtown only to find out that due to karmic bad timing, they got there AFTER the weddings stopped. Meh.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#40 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 10:46 PM

Drew, on Mar 12 2004, 02:23 PM, said:

I mean, let's reverse it. Let's say that the people of California overwhelmingly voted to legalize gay marriage. And then let's say that a bunch of conservatives get appointed to the judiciary (assuming that the Democrats stop filibustering enough to let such a thing happen). Then let's say that these judges decided that the people's vote was wrong, and they overturn it and declare gay marriages illegal.

Do you think you'd be a little annoyed by judicial activism then? If so, then you can see my concern.
There is a valid argument that the people voted for something unconstitutional. Happens sometimes. We'll see what the court has to say.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: California, LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court, Injunction

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users