Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
34 online now:
Aussie, Captcass, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,654 Year: 16,690/19,786 Month: 815/2,598 Week: 61/251 Day: 14/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 396 of 759 (702135)
07-01-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by NoNukes
07-01-2013 11:29 AM


Re: Res judicata, maybe...
The state may or may not intervene to defend the constitutionality of the law, but it is not clear to me that either claim or issue preclusion would prevent a California citizen from suing a different county official in California courts as long as that count official were not subject to the jurisdiction of the original court.

The order from the Federal District Court (Northern District for California) specifically bars the official defendants from enforcing Prop 8 and further "directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision" shall not enforce it.

The governor was named as an official defendant. Under California law the marriage laws are state laws and the county clerks act as "agents" of the state (stemming from the executive branch) in issuing licenses. Every official from state to county (as extensions of the Governor's executive powers) are now barred from enforcing Prop 8.

Missed this.

And let's say that the new district court rules similar to the first state court. The plaintiff would have the option of appealing to the CA state supreme court rather than to the 9th circuit.

I'm not understanding this. There has not been any state court action here. The original suit was brought to the Federal District Court. Any other suit seeking to overturn the Federal injunction ordered would need to be brought to the Federal courts. The state system no longer has any say in this matter.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2013 11:29 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2013 5:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 399 of 759 (702163)
07-01-2013 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Minnemooseus
07-01-2013 10:11 PM


Re: Side note - Bill Clinton, DOMA, then and now
Now that is interesting. It gives a new power to the court's decision in Windsor.

In the Windsor case SCOTUS acknowledged very strongly that the states and only the states have the power to define marriage. Further, that any couple declared lawfully married by any state must be treated so for all purposes by all Federal systems.

The only way to overcome this now is by amendment taking that exclusive power away from the states. I cannot see the states accepting this diminution.

Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-01-2013 10:11 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 403 of 759 (702250)
07-02-2013 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by NoNukes
07-02-2013 5:40 PM


Re: Res judicata, maybe...
The rulings of a district are not binding precedent even in the same jurisdiction; in completely different jurisdictions between completely different parties, it is of only persuasive authority.

So true. And keep in mind that, though vacated in effect, the 9th Circuit has already made its judgement known. The other three District Courts in California already know what will happen.

I may get surprised but I cannot see where any state court action can affect this in any way. If some clerk in the Eastern Federal District decides to not issue a license the couple files suit in that Federal court, not the State court. This is, after all, a Federal Constitutional issue.

If some Prop 8 proponents file suit in state court seeking to revive Prop 8 enforcement within the other three Federal Districts they will find that the State District court will dismiss since the issue is already in the Federal courts.

The only further action on this would be if the State takes a U-turn and decides to appeal the Northern District order back to the 9th Circuit.

I think this is a dead issue. Prop 8 is gone ... everywhere ... forever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2013 5:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2013 9:07 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 408 of 759 (702280)
07-03-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-03-2013 2:39 PM


Re: How does the striking down of DOMA affect cities?
So, if this turns out to be the case then individuals in same sex marriages in cities that are in states that do not recognize these marriages should still be able to have their Federal rights, if not State rights?

The Windsor decision reiterated that only the states, not the federal government, have the power to define marriage. Regardless of what happens in Bisbee the state of Arizona does not recognize same-sex marriage. Therefore gay couples in Arizona cannot apply for Federal benefits as married couples would. Federal benefits, as far as I know, do not extend to civil unions in the same way as they do to marriage thus the equal protection argument for "marriage" in Windsor against DOMA.

The Federal government can still treat marriage differently from civil unions and domestic partnerships. What the Feds can no longer do is treat "married" as defined in one state different than married as defined in another state. This puts, in Federal eyes, all California married couples (including gay) on an equal footing with Arizona's hetero-only married couples.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 2:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 4:26 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 410 of 759 (702284)
07-03-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-03-2013 4:26 PM


Re: How does the striking down of DOMA affect cities?
Wasn't that the whole reason the term Civil Union was coined, so the states could call it something other than marriage, but give same-sex partners the same state rights?

Somewhat, yes, since at the time, early 2000, no one wanted to allow gay marriage. Depending on the state different property rights attach to civil unions than to marriage. I'm no sure about other rights, priviledges, obligations vis-a-vis marriage which will very state by state. Today, in states that allow same-sex marriage, civil unions are no longer needed.

In Arizona, we don't even have civil unions. If you're gay, you stay "single" or move to another state.

Won't that run into a legal issue now that they can get state, but not Federal? Especially because the entire talking point of "You get everything they get from us" is no longer true?

You can see it coming. If a state allows civil unions but not gay marriage then a case can be made that this distinction is made to discriminate against gays. The same 14th Amendment issue could be argued. The California Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v Perry, sets a precedent such states will find difficult to overcome. If they now allow civil unions expect them to allow same-sex marriage in its place right soon.

Arizona, and a few others, that do not allow gay marriage AND have no civil union/domestic partnership laws are a totally different matter. If the state has every right to define "marriage" in accordance with its own values and customs, can a federal court compel the state to allow same-sex marriage? Windsor says only the state can define marriage, not the federal government, and that includes the courts. Interesting isn't it?

Stay tuned.

An afterthought:

In Hollingsworth the district court said the California Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage violated 14th Amendment rights.

Arizona's Constitution contains a similar amendment. Keep in mind that we, as well, are in the 9th Circuit and, even though their judgement was vacated, we have a real good idea what will happen if when suit comes to the Arizona District court.

So that kinda answers my question above. Yeah, the Federal courts can force a state to define "marriage" any way it wants.

Edited by AZPaul3, : afterthought


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 4:26 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 10:59 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 416 of 759 (702320)
07-04-2013 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by dwise1
07-04-2013 2:19 AM


It's A Long Road.
What of the ruling on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia? How did that play out in all the other states?

The last of the Anti-miscegenation laws was repealed in 2001 in Alabama. 35 years. Of course it hadn't been enforced since 1967 but bigotry dies hard and we still ain't there yet vis-a-vis race.

For the Big Bird of Tempe:

I'm with NoNukes on this one.

I do not think a Loving like ruling from SCOTUS should be expected anytime soon. I think the Hollingsworth decision from the district court in California is the more important decision for the gay movement since it sets the precedent of using the 14th Amendment argument against the anti-gay laws and state amendments.

I would expect a rash of suits in Federal District courts over the next couple years. It will take awhile for these to bubble up to SCOTUS. Who knows the composition of the court then?

If you believe in the societal-shaping powers of SCOTUS over generations as I do then our grandchildren, or in my case great-grandchildren, will see the end of the legal stops to gay marriage. The bigotry, however, will go on for many generations yet.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2013 2:19 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-09-2013 2:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 418 of 759 (702583)
07-09-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-09-2013 2:34 PM


Re: It's A Long Road.
It appears they will be taking the same route as the plaintiffs in the California case, by claiming that the ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it breaches the Fourteenth Amendment and it's equal protection.

The gates are open. Here come the water.

By the way, how many of these lawsuits do you think will be backed by the ACLU? I know they are the fighters for equality in many instances, but will they take up all of the cases?

It depends on the local ACLU council. Each local council is free to pursue those cases it desires. Depending upon the local resources a case under consideration may be kicked up to the national council.

In a lot of these kinds of cases the ACLU loves to become involved because it's what the ACLU does. In addition to enhancing their public stature these folks are quite adamant about protecting constitutional rights, especially where some minority or unpopular people are being trampled by the state. There are too many examples to cite but one of my favorites was when the ACLU filed suit on behalf of the American Nazi Party seeking their right to peacefully demonstrate and march in Skokie, Illinois, a predominately jewish community in the Chicago area. Up to SCOTUS and they won. You can expect to see the ACLU involved in a number of these suits about to come flooding in.

Depending upon the plaintiffs and the local community, some other local or regional right's group may lead and fund the case. The California suite was brought to the Federal District Court by an organization put together specifically for this suit. They went out and raised the funds, hired the attorneys and funded the entire action.

I haven't heard about any actions contemplated in Arizona. This, it seems to me, would be one of the prime places to hit.

Edited by AZPaul3, : usual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-09-2013 2:34 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 07-09-2013 11:49 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 426 of 759 (702601)
07-10-2013 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
07-10-2013 2:55 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
The only rights we have are the ones we can defend. When we cannot defend these rights for the least of us, for the ones with whom we vehemently disagree, then we ourselves have no rights.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 2:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 3:38 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 431 of 759 (702609)
07-10-2013 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by Faith
07-10-2013 3:38 AM


Who's Twisted?
"Ones with whom we vehemently disagree" at one time might have included ...

... different political platforms.

But not nazis or any other political philosophy you find to be bad.

... about forms of church services, ...

But not Islam or any other denomination you find to be bad.

Now it applies to murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.

Really? Where? Show me. Give me an example.

Do you repudiate an accused's right to the presumption of innocence? Do you repudiate an accused's right to council? Do you repudiate an accused's right to a jury trial? Do you repudiate an accused's right to not be tortured?

The ACLU will defend these rights regardless of the charged offense. Whether you're an embezzler or a baby-raping priest these rights are there and need to be defended.

NAMBLA yet, you know, the "right" of gay men to molest little boys?

The ACLU does not defend the "right" of gay men to molest little boys. That is your bullshit.

What the ACLU defends is NAMBLA's right to speak, as abhorrent as it is. To have a web site where they discuss their ugly philosophy. Only a defense attorney defends the molester and he does that by saying "he didn't do it."

The right defended is "freedom of political speech," not molestation.

Is there nobody here that gets this point, are you ALL twisted?

You do not get the point, do you! To you constitutional rights are only for those you think are worthy. Maybe I should be in charge and find your violent, bloody religion to be not worthy.

The ACLU defended the right to free political speech, not any right of the NAZIs to burn jews. Only by hearing the NAZIs spew their garbage can society abhor and reject their philosophy. That is what "freedom of speech" is all about. And the ACLU defends it at every turn.

quote:
The only rights we have are the ones we can defend. When we cannot defend these rights for the least of us, for the ones with whom we vehemently disagree, then we ourselves have no rights.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : more


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 3:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 433 of 759 (702614)
07-10-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Faith
07-10-2013 9:46 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
With all its talk of original sin, hell, lake of fire, the bloodshed you hope to see one day in Revelations, plus your god's history of murdering innocent civilians, non-combatant women and children, ethnic cleansing writ large, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of the population of an entire planet, then you must feel that there can be no right to "free speech" for this criminal and sociopathic sort nor for the adherents of such a vile, sick and demented philosophy.

I disagree.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : I'll get it right, eventually.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 9:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:20 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 436 of 759 (702618)
07-10-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Faith
07-10-2013 10:20 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
God punishes SIN, evil behavior ...

You do realize that the sin committed, the evil that was done, was to have been born, remember?

Don't talk to me about reversing good and evil. Your god, your religion is the most evil thing to have ever come from the minds of men. It is an abomination, a stench in the nostrils of all humanity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 438 of 759 (702620)
07-10-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by subbie
07-10-2013 10:38 AM


Yeah, and I hooked into it and helped in the derailment.

I stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by subbie, posted 07-10-2013 10:38 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 453 of 759 (702692)
07-10-2013 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by hooah212002
07-10-2013 7:45 PM


Even if the whole society says it's OK a child is going to know there's something wrong with the situation.

No, that is a lie. Something you made up.

Actually I think there is quite a bit of truth to this.

If our society sanctioned gay parentage we would still have entire communities of religious bigots rubbing the childrens' young innocent faces in the mud telling them their "parents" are sinners and that they are all going to burn in hell because they are not normal.

That will certainly give a child pause.

If the christian bigots would practice their creed and treat all the little ones with the love they deserve then there would be no sad little faces being taunted by christian bullies in the schoolyard.

So Faith is correct. The poor children will have concerns because the christians will keep throwing stones at them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 7:45 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 9:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 457 of 759 (702696)
07-10-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by hooah212002
07-10-2013 9:18 PM


Pointy Sticks
Well, yea, I could see that. I took her saying ...

I really wasn't challenging your statement. Just using your message as a platform to throw pointy sticks at Faith.

It's all hyperbole and make believe anyways because we won't live to see the day where someone's sexual orientation matters to anyone.

[loads up the spear-thrower]

You're right. Sad, isn't it. But that's christian for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 9:18 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:07 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4505
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 459 of 759 (702699)
07-10-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
07-10-2013 10:07 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Is pedophilia a "sexual orientation" ...

And just how does pedophilia enter into this discussion of gay marriage?

And how does religious leaders porking boys impact the discussion on whether a stable loving gay couple could provide a stable loving home for children?

Hateful fear mongering: another well established christian tactic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 2:17 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019