Prop 8 Overturned on Standing

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the defendant on Prop 8 didn't have standing, how could the defendant on DOMA have standing?  In both cases the executive chose not to defend the law and so it was taken up by someone else.

The DOMA case was unusual in that while the executive wasn't defending the law in court, it was still acting as if the law was in force and actively opposing a court order to pay the plaintiff back the ill-gotten taxes with interest.  Whereas in the Prop 8 case, the California government was not only not defending the case, if it hadn't been for the intervenors, it would have started issuing same-sex marriage licenses well before today.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You'll get over it, once you eventually stumble your way into the 21st century.

I'm in the 21st century. California by the will of the people twice affirmed traditional marriage and banned gay marriage. The folks defending that had to because the state refused to honor their obligation to defend that law. Thus Prop 8 is constitutional.

Ummm... how'd you reach that conclusion? It's constitutional because people voted for it?

No, he just prefers a Democratic decision rather than forced by the Government.

By the people or their legislative representives not by nine oligarchs in black robes. Say the roles were reversed and the courts forced traditional marriage on a state which by direct vote of the people or their legislative representatives decided otherwise, what would you do?

But didn't the statehouse pass it as well to be a direct vote? This is twice that the will of the citizens of California have been disregarded when it comes to this issue.

     No, it didn't. The California state Legislature banning gay marriage is slightly more likely than it making Zoroastrianism the state religion.

JCL probably thinks that Zoroastrianism is a branch of Islam. In which case, in his mind, the legislature of the state of
 California making Zoroastrianism the state religion is extremely likely.

That would be wrong. Zoroastrianism is it's own religion that has been around longer than the Mohameden religion

[Blue3]

5 steps in the wrong direction. The people had proper standing thus SCOTUS is wrong.

I wonder if anyone's ever told you that there's not actually a word said in your holy book against homosexuality save for the Levitical Laws, which were nullified by Christ's sacrifice? And which only hardcore Jews are even remotely supposed believe in?

Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians would like a word with you.

Pasting something I wrote on Facebook recently...

Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It's also a civil contract. You can get married in a church, but not have it recognized by the government. You can get married in the eyes of the government, and not in a church.

There are also several churches that have gay religious wedding ceremonies, should they have their religion discriminated against? The U.S. government is not supposed to give preference to any religious establishment, as it says in the 1st amendment.

So, taking religions out of this, the Supreme Court has realized that there's no reason these people/couples don't deserve equal protection under the law. And really, isn't this just an extension of the male/female equality movement? If the government should be sex-blind, then the gender(s) of a couple who wants to get married shouldn't matter.

Lastly, the Bible itself says in the Epistle to the Galatians that male/female distinctions don't matter because male and female, free and slave, gentile and jew, are all one in God (Galatians 3:28). And Jesus never condemned homosexuality or gay marriage, or really commented on the issue. In fact, there's evidence that the Roman Centurion he met was begging for his male lover to be healed, and Jesus gave him the greatest compliment in the entire Bible for his love and devotion to his friend (greater faith than all of Israel), and didn't say anything like "you're sinning, go and sin no more," no it was just the great compliment. And really, why else would an occupying soldier seek out a radical wandering jewish preacher and ask for help unless he really loved this man and would risk anything for him? In the original Greek, the Centurion referred to his friend as his "pais" which means a lover from a lower social ranking, "pais" was also used in the New Testament to describe Hagar's relationship to Abraham in the original Greek. Also, Jesus said many of the commandments of the Old Testament were now fulfilled (such as the stoning disobedient children one). It's true that Paul seemed to contradict Jesus and condemn it a couple times (depending on the translation, it varies in what he meant), but he also seemed limited in his understanding, thinking such a relationship could only be lustful, when we know now that same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples.

But all those religious arguments don't really matter, since we live in America, where there's supposed to be liberty and justice for all, with the freedom to believe what you want and not allowing any religious interpretation to dominate government and people of different belief.

[morgieb]

Very surprising voting on the ruling.

Still, great news for Californians.

[Mopsus]

But didn't the statehouse pass it as well to be a direct vote? This is twice that the will of the citizens of California have been disregarded when it comes to this issue.

     No, it didn't. The California state Legislature banning gay marriage is slightly more likely than it making Zoroastrianism the state religion.

JCL probably thinks that Zoroastrianism is a branch of Islam. In which case, in his mind, the legislature of the state of
 California making Zoroastrianism the state religion is extremely likely.

That would be wrong. Zoroastrianism is it's own religion that has been around longer than the Mohameden religion

"Mohameden", eh...?

Indeed, you're right; Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest world faiths, in fact. For example, it is at the very least a good six hundred years older than the cult of that one Jewish fellow.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Paul doesn't contradict Jesus on this. Look at Galatians 5:16-23

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

But didn't the statehouse pass it as well to be a direct vote? This is twice that the will of the citizens of California have been disregarded when it comes to this issue.

     No, it didn't. The California state Legislature banning gay marriage is slightly more likely than it making Zoroastrianism the state religion.

JCL probably thinks that Zoroastrianism is a branch of Islam. In which case, in his mind, the legislature of the state of
 California making Zoroastrianism the state religion is extremely likely.

That would be wrong. Zoroastrianism is it's own religion that has been around longer than the Mohameden religion

"Mohameden", eh...?

Indeed, you're right; Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest world faiths, in fact. For example, it is at the very least a good six hundred years older than the cult of that one Jewish fellow.

That Jewish fellow didn't lead a cult. That Jewish guy you're refering to is Messiah.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

But didn't the statehouse pass it as well to be a direct vote? This is twice that the will of the citizens of California have been disregarded when it comes to this issue.

People's right to equality > people's right to oppress other people.

Liberty without morality is anarchy. Peoples right to defend traditional morality> An oligarchy's right to opress those who are defending traditional morality.

The court attacked the rights of voter referendums and that's just as bad as allowing ssm.

[Mopsus]

But didn't the statehouse pass it as well to be a direct vote? This is twice that the will of the citizens of California have been disregarded when it comes to this issue.

     No, it didn't. The California state Legislature banning gay marriage is slightly more likely than it making Zoroastrianism the state religion.

JCL probably thinks that Zoroastrianism is a branch of Islam. In which case, in his mind, the legislature of the state of
 California making Zoroastrianism the state religion is extremely likely.

That would be wrong. Zoroastrianism is it's own religion that has been around longer than the Mohameden religion

"Mohameden", eh...?

Indeed, you're right; Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest world faiths, in fact. For example, it is at the very least a good six hundred years older than the cult of that one Jewish fellow.

That Jewish fellow didn't lead a cult. That Jewish guy you're refering to is Messiah.

Hmm, no, I think that you're thinking of Cyrus the Great.

[Blue3]

Paul doesn't contradict Jesus on this. Look at Galatians 5:16-23

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A16-23&version=NIV

And? Being pro-gay isn't contradicted by any of that. Straight people are just as capable of being lustful as gay people. It's lust that's sinful, and it plagues both homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. Just as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are capable of true love. And all who love dwell in God, and God dwells in them, for God is love.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You know JCL, shouldn't you be excited about this, with all the sins of mankind becoming acceptable, which in turn brings forth the Second Coming?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You know JCL, shouldn't you be excited about this, with all the sins of mankind becoming acceptable, which in turn brings forth the Second Coming?

I know that these things are signs of the Second Coming as it talks about in 2 Timothy 4:1-5 yet it saddens me and other Christians as well.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You know JCL, shouldn't you be excited about this, with all the sins of mankind becoming acceptable, which in turn brings forth the Second Coming?

I know that these things are signs of the Second Coming as it talks about in 2 Timothy 4:1-5 yet it saddens me and other Christians as well.

So you don't want Jesus to return?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You know JCL, shouldn't you be excited about this, with all the sins of mankind becoming acceptable, which in turn brings forth the Second Coming?

I know that these things are signs of the Second Coming as it talks about in 2 Timothy 4:1-5 yet it saddens me and other Christians as well.

So you don't want Jesus to return?

I want him to return  I know things are gonna get bad and the prophetic scriptures ( 150 chapters of the Bible) cover that in depth. I know not many are willing to listen and consider what I'm saying from the Biblical view but I'm obliged by my love for my fellow human beings to speak.

[DC Al Fine]

5 steps in the wrong direction. The people had proper standing thus SCOTUS is wrong.

I wonder if anyone's ever told you that there's not actually a word said in your holy book against homosexuality save for the Levitical Laws, which were nullified by Christ's sacrifice? And which only hardcore Jews are even remotely supposed believe in?

Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians would like a word with you.

Lastly, the Bible itself says in the Epistle to the Galatians that male/female distinctions don't matter because male and female, free and slave, gentile and jew, are all one in God (Galatians 3:28). And Jesus never condemned homosexuality or gay marriage, or really commented on the issue. In fact, there's evidence that the Roman Centurion he met was begging for his male lover to be healed, and Jesus gave him the greatest compliment in the entire Bible for his love and devotion to his friend (greater faith than all of Israel), and didn't say anything like "you're sinning, go and sin no more," no it was just the great compliment. And really, why else would an occupying soldier seek out a radical wandering jewish preacher and ask for help unless he really loved this man and would risk anything for him? In the original Greek, the Centurion referred to his friend as his "pais" which means a lover from a lower social ranking, "pais" was also used in the New Testament to describe Hagar's relationship to Abraham in the original Greek. Also, Jesus said many of the commandments of the Old Testament were now fulfilled (such as the stoning disobedient children one). It's true that Paul seemed to contradict Jesus and condemn it a couple times (depending on the translation, it varies in what he meant), but he also seemed limited in his understanding, thinking such a relationship could only be lustful, when we know now that same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples.

Starwatcher, I take issue with your translation of "pais" since in the other Gospels it most definitely does not mean "homosexual lover". It is most commonly translated as "servant" or child. Here are some uses of "pais", where I've replaced the normal translation with "homosexual lover".

Here is the Centurion: "for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my homosexual lover will be healed."

Ok fair enough, but look at how the gospel writers use the word, the rest of the time.

"He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his homosexual lover David"

"He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, "homosexual lover, arise !"

"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the homosexual lovers who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.

I think from the gospel writers POV, "pais" is clearly a term for servant or child. In the case of the centurion, there is no evidence of any gospel writer using their term except in that one context where it could just as easily mean servant. I also take issue with your characterization of the centurions love of his friend as only eros, not agape.

[The Free North]

I am glad that SSM is now legal in California, but if you forget about the specifics of this case, it's a pretty bad decision. It basically gives the State authorities a veto power over any popular initiative that would be challenged and struck down in lower courts. This defeats the whole purpose of having popular initiatives.

Yup

[bedstuy]

I am glad that SSM is now legal in California, but if you forget about the specifics of this case, it's a pretty bad decision. It basically gives the State authorities a veto power over any popular initiative that would be challenged and struck down in lower courts. This defeats the whole purpose of having popular initiatives.

^^^^
This.

As a Democracy advocate, the precedent of rulings like this are kind of scary.  If authorities can just decide to veto a popular initiative that was about banning gay marriages, what is to stop somebody from vetoing a popular iniative that would ban the death penalty?

I know, hypotheticals. . . . .  .

Solution:  Don't pass state initiatives that violate the Federal Constitution. 

the Justices who ruled against standing did not claim any such thing. 

I guess in the case of the death penalty at least the a person on death row would have standing to defend the initiative.

If a state initiative doesn't violate the state or federal constitution, how is it going to be overturned by a court? 

There could be an incorrect decision by the lower court.  This happens all the time...

How many Constitutional challenges to a state initiatives, with this specific standing problem, are heard in the Federal courts per year?  I would bet the median number is 0.  Even if you have this standing problem, you can usually find some plaintiff with citizen standing.  This is basically a non-issue.  

[Blue3]

5 steps in the wrong direction. The people had proper standing thus SCOTUS is wrong.

I wonder if anyone's ever told you that there's not actually a word said in your holy book against homosexuality save for the Levitical Laws, which were nullified by Christ's sacrifice? And which only hardcore Jews are even remotely supposed believe in?

Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians would like a word with you.

Lastly, the Bible itself says in the Epistle to the Galatians that male/female distinctions don't matter because male and female, free and slave, gentile and jew, are all one in God (Galatians 3:28). And Jesus never condemned homosexuality or gay marriage, or really commented on the issue. In fact, there's evidence that the Roman Centurion he met was begging for his male lover to be healed, and Jesus gave him the greatest compliment in the entire Bible for his love and devotion to his friend (greater faith than all of Israel), and didn't say anything like "you're sinning, go and sin no more," no it was just the great compliment. And really, why else would an occupying soldier seek out a radical wandering jewish preacher and ask for help unless he really loved this man and would risk anything for him? In the original Greek, the Centurion referred to his friend as his "pais" which means a lover from a lower social ranking, "pais" was also used in the New Testament to describe Hagar's relationship to Abraham in the original Greek. Also, Jesus said many of the commandments of the Old Testament were now fulfilled (such as the stoning disobedient children one). It's true that Paul seemed to contradict Jesus and condemn it a couple times (depending on the translation, it varies in what he meant), but he also seemed limited in his understanding, thinking such a relationship could only be lustful, when we know now that same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples.

Starwatcher, I take issue with your translation of "pais" since in the other Gospels it most definitely does not mean "homosexual lover". It is most commonly translated as "servant" or child. Here are some uses of "pais", where I've replaced the normal translation with "homosexual lover".

Here is the Centurion: "for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my homosexual lover will be healed."

Ok fair enough, but look at how the gospel writers use the word, the rest of the time.

"He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his homosexual lover David"

"He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, "homosexual lover, arise !"

"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the homosexual lovers who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.

I think from the gospel writers POV, "pais" is clearly a term for servant or child. In the case of the centurion, there is no evidence of any gospel writer using their term except in that one context where it could just as easily mean servant. I also take issue with your characterization of the centurions love of his friend as only eros, not agape.

I said "pais" means someone beloved from a lower social rank. There was no word that means the same as "homosexual" until the 19th century.

And who said gay love is only eros, and not also agape?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If the defendant on Prop 8 didn't have standing, how could the defendant on DOMA have standing?  In both cases the executive chose not to defend the law and so it was taken up by someone else.

The DOMA case was unusual in that while the executive wasn't defending the law in court, it was still acting as if the law was in force and actively opposing a court order to pay the plaintiff back the ill-gotten taxes with interest.  Whereas in the Prop 8 case, the California government was not only not defending the case, if it hadn't been for the intervenors, it would have started issuing same-sex marriage licenses well before today.

The legality of what the Federal Government did is debatable.  You can't just ignore a ruling unless you're going to appeal the ruling, and to appeal, you need reasoning behind why you're seeking the relief requested.  SCOTUS ruled on the substance of the case because the majority wanted to end DOMA, but the way they did it was irresponsible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I think that the Prop 8 ruling was correct, because the petitioners lacked standing.  The problem with the two rulings together was that if the Court is going to trample the rules on standing, wouldn't it be better to do so in order to protect the rights of people trying to pass initiatives instead of doing so to protect the rights of the legislature?

A dangerous loophole was discovered in this ruling.  State governments now have effective veto power over initiatives.  They can simply wait for a non-government party to challenge an initiative, and then choose not to defend the initiative, and boom! initiative can be struck down, and there's no ability for appeal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The difference is that the people bringing suit in this instance were not people who were adversely affected by California issuing same-sex marriage licenses, they were simply people who didn't like that and disapproved of it. In just about any other law there would be someone adversely affected who could sue with standing.

The defendants probably could've found someone with standing if they had allowed the previous decision to go through, and thus could now, such as say a county clerk in trouble with their superiors for refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses. So the only precedent here is that a person lacks standing to petition to defend a law merely because they disagree with what the law prohibits.

[bedstuy]

And I think that the Prop 8 ruling was correct, because the petitioners lacked standing.  The problem with the two rulings together was that if the Court is going to trample the rules on standing, wouldn't it be better to do so in order to protect the rights of people trying to pass initiatives instead of doing so to protect the rights of the legislature?

A dangerous loophole was discovered in this ruling.  State governments now have effective veto power over initiatives.  They can simply wait for a non-government party to challenge an initiative, and then choose not to defend the initiative, and boom! initiative can be struck down, and there's no ability for appeal.

No, that's only if there's no intervenor with individualized standing.  Rule 24 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covers this.  And again, this is a rare case and sometimes standing rules are just a bummer.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Color me puzzled with this ruling. It basically directly conflicts with the DOMA ruling.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I think that the Prop 8 ruling was correct, because the petitioners lacked standing.  The problem with the two rulings together was that if the Court is going to trample the rules on standing, wouldn't it be better to do so in order to protect the rights of people trying to pass initiatives instead of doing so to protect the rights of the legislature?

A dangerous loophole was discovered in this ruling.  State governments now have effective veto power over initiatives.  They can simply wait for a non-government party to challenge an initiative, and then choose not to defend the initiative, and boom! initiative can be struck down, and there's no ability for appeal.

No, that's only if there's no intervenor with individualized standing.  Rule 24 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covers this.  And again, this is a rare case and sometimes standing rules are just a bummer.

I understand why it was ruled the way it was, and I understand Rule 24.  I'm simply saying that in the future, this could potentially lead to abuse by the states.

[bedstuy]

And I think that the Prop 8 ruling was correct, because the petitioners lacked standing.  The problem with the two rulings together was that if the Court is going to trample the rules on standing, wouldn't it be better to do so in order to protect the rights of people trying to pass initiatives instead of doing so to protect the rights of the legislature?

A dangerous loophole was discovered in this ruling.  State governments now have effective veto power over initiatives.  They can simply wait for a non-government party to challenge an initiative, and then choose not to defend the initiative, and boom! initiative can be struck down, and there's no ability for appeal.

No, that's only if there's no intervenor with individualized standing.  Rule 24 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covers this.  And again, this is a rare case and sometimes standing rules are just a bummer.

I understand why it was ruled the way it was, and I understand Rule 24.  I'm simply saying that in the future, this could potentially lead to abuse by the states.

Three things:

Prop 8 is sui generis.  This is an incredibly rare situation.  It's not likely to happen with any regularity.

If a state wants to purposefully lose a litigation, they have better options.  What about just making a few mistakes like not raising major issues, etc? 

In any case, there's going to be a final judgment on the merits from a court with jurisdiction.  That's worth something.