|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think it was an older lady... in her 80's or something. What were those citizens saying were the reasons that they wanted to challenge the removal of Prop 8? She apparently got a message from the government saying that her marriage wasn't legally recognized, so she wasn't able to claim the marriage-benefits that she did, and now owed the government something like $383,000. She didn't think it was fair to pay that, and went to court. ...I think. No, I think that's what led to the removal of Prop 8 (ABE: apparently that was DOMA). But then some other citizens wanted to challenge that removal. Now the courts are saying they don't have any standing to challenge it. I was just wondering what their reasoning for challenging the removal was. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
After the courts ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, didn't some people come in to challenge that ruling? What were their reasons for challenging it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I believe a comedian said (i forget his name)said something to the effect, "I say let em get married and be miserable as the rest of us." From Carlin to me - we've all done a bit slightly similar to this. It's one of those shared premises in the biz. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
What were their reasons for challenging it? Gays are gross. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What were those citizens saying were the reasons that they wanted to challenge the removal of Prop 8? It helps to remember the entire history of gay marriage in California. The state supreme court declared laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional. A group of hate-filled bigots got Proposition 8 on the ballots as a referendum to in effect undo that decision. The Proposition passed. Under this situation, it's easy to see that state authorities might be disinclined to defend the Proposition. In order to ensure that the will of the people as expressed by the passage of Proposition 8 is adequately defended in court, California law gives the proponents of a given Proposition the authority to represent the state in court. They are not representing their interests, they are representing the interests of the state as expressed by the will of the people. Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The people that defended the proposition actually participated as representatives of the state's interests at the district court level. They were defending the proposition because the then governor disagreed with the proposition and refused to defend it.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thanks. And thanks for the other explanation too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That was the wrong case. That one was the DOMA case, where because the feds did not see her marriage as 'legal', she had to pay an extra 383K in inheritance tax when her partner passed. ... and they were legally married in NYS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
However, it is also well-settled that the state has standing to appeal any decision declaring any portion of its constitution unconstitutional. Do you agree with this? Sure. I agree with that.
Question 2: Who has the authority to represent the state? This is a question of state law. Here I disagree. Standing before the federal court is simply not a question of state law. If the governor, or his designee (say the state attorney general) or says that citizen Y can represent the state, that's would pose a much closer question. But in this case we have something different. We have a CA court saying that some ordinary citizens can represent California. Well it turns out that for federal standing, the California court was incorrect. Ordinary citizen Y does not represent California for the purpose of pursuing a matter in federal court, they only represent themselves.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If the governor, or his designee (say the state attorney general) or says that citizen Y can represent the state, that's would pose a much closer question. But in this case we have something different. We have a CA court saying that some ordinary citizens can represent California. No. We have the state supreme court holding that California law provides as follows:
quote: 52 Cal. 4th 1116, 265 P.3d 1002, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2011) This is THE authoritative construction of California law, proponents have the right to assert the state's interest. The only way to get around this is to ignore it. It is of particular importance to note that, under California law, ballot initiative proponents are not simply "some ordinary citizen." The court explained:
quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is THE authoritative construction of California law, proponents have the right to assert the state's interest. In California. But I don't see how that affects the Supreme Court. Take a parallel instance. Suppose the state of Georgia (for example) amended its Constitution to do away with the requirements for standing altogether. Would the Supreme Court then be bound to agree that anyone at all from Georgia has locus standi before the S.C? No. Georgia can change its own Constitution all it likes, it doesn't affect federal law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
There are two separate issues here.
Nobody doubts that the state of California has standing to pursue this matter. The only question is who has the authority to protect California's interests. States have the inherent authority to delegate who has that authority. Obviously, the state itself cannot do it. The state is an abstract governmental entity. It acts through the actions of people, its agents. In the vast majority of cases, that agent is going to be the attorney general (or someone in his office). In this particular case, since the challenged constitutional amendment was enacted by a referendum, it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the attorney general or governor might not want to defend it if they disagree with it. Thus, it's in the interests of those who voted the initiative into law to have someone who supports it defending it. That's why California law specifically authorizes the proponents to do so. Nobody is arguing that California is trying to get around the standing requirement or eliminate it as suggested by your hypothetical. Instead, they are trying to meet it by designating a certain class of people who have the authority to assert the state's interests. Standing in federal court is and always will be a question of federal law for federal courts to construe. However, the identity of the person or persons that a state designates to represent its interests is a question of state law.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
As I write this, same sex marriages in California have resumed.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Standing in federal court is and always will be a question of federal law for federal courts to construe. However, the identity of the person or persons that a state designates to represent its interests is a question of state law. You are simply asserting the point that is in dispute and are repeating the same argument as if it has not been responded to. I'll respond with a two fold argument. 1. I don't doubt that California officials could designate someone to represent its interest, but that's not exactly what happened here. A CA court simply ruled that the defendant's represented California. Well federal law does not allow that option. It is particularly farcial because the CA executives refused to defend the law. Under those circumstance, where does a CA court derive the ability to circumvent federal law. 2. The federal rules still apply. Just as the state cannot force the Supreme Court to accept a disbarred attorney as their chosen representative, the state cannot circumvent federal standing rules by designating an ineligible party as their representative. Regardless of what the CA Supreme Court said, it was pretty clear that at best the parties represented part of the electorate, but the electorate is NOT the state. The state is represented by CA executive and legislative branch, and neither of those parties picked someone to represent them.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The state is represented by CA executive and legislative branch, and neither of those parties picked someone to represent them. The legislative branch in effect did pick someone to represent the state. They drafted a statute that gave the proponent of a ballot initiative the authority to represent the state's interest when the initiative in challenged.
Regardless of what the CA Supreme Court said, it was pretty clear that at best the parties represented part of the electorate, but the electorate is NOT the state. The state is an abstract political entity. No one person could ever represent all the interests of the state all the time. But that's not what's at issue. What's at issue is a constitutional amendment drafted by a small group of dedicated supporters and passed by a majority of voters. The basic purpose served by the standing requirement is to ensure that the person advocating for the position has sufficient interest in the issue to provide zealous and effective advocacy in support of the issue. In the case of a citizen initiative, there's every reason to suppose that the duly elected officials of the state might not have that interest. The very purpose of the citizen initiative is to provide the citizenry a course for changing the law under circumstances where their elected representatives, for whatever reason, will not. To then say that those elected representatives, and only those elected representatives, can adequately represent the state's interests is perverse and irrational. In the abstract, which ultimately is where most laws are written, I can think of no person or group of people who would be better suited to zealously represent the interests of the state, as expressed by a majority of the voting population, than the proponents of the initiative.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024