[Merged] Prop 8 Overturned

SezMe · 4th August 2010, 03:23 PM

A judge has overturned Prop 8 in California which means gay marriage is legal. Here are a couple of quotes from the ruling which are bound to rankle the nutbars:

Quote:

The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

Quote:

Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2010, 03:36 PM

And the crowd goes wild.

BenBurch · 4th August 2010, 03:37 PM

Woo Hoo!

BenBurch · 4th August 2010, 03:40 PM

Woo Hoo!

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2010, 03:52 PM

Well, it looks like gay marriage will be legal by 2012.

The Mayans were right.

Accidental Martyr · 4th August 2010, 03:56 PM

Just saw this news a few minutes ago. Cool!

bookitty · 4th August 2010, 04:01 PM

This is just so great. There's still a ways to go but at least we're headed in the right direction.

Thunder · 4th August 2010, 04:01 PM

i am against the bigots who are against gay rights, more than i am against gay marriage.

so..congrats. good triumphs over evil.

RobRoy · 4th August 2010, 04:03 PM

I honestly couldn't be happier. No, that's not true. I could have won the lottery, found out my son was already potty-trained, and received notification that a publisher wants to publish my book.

But this is reasonably close. I opposed Prop 8 when it was on the ballot, was much chagrined when it was passed, and I'm thrilled that the initial challenge has been successful.

Unfortunately, it's still too early to celebrate, as this ruling will most likely be appealed to a higher court.

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2010, 04:08 PM

What are the odds of it being upheld by the Supremes? I give it a 50/50 shot...barring a radical change in the court of course.

The key vote is Kennedy and he is a mixed bag on gay rights. He did favor striking sodomy laws so it isn't all bleak.

Schrodinger's Cat · 4th August 2010, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

And the crowd goes wild.

This is fantastic. I can't remember the last time a news story actually made me shout out in joy.

Let's hope it stands.

ddt · 4th August 2010, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

And the crowd goes wild.

Great!

Now, this is a ruling in a federal court. There are, IIRC, more than a dozen other states that have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. What are the consequences for those laws?

applecorped · 4th August 2010, 04:29 PM

Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught!

paximperium · 4th August 2010, 04:33 PM

Poor Prop 8 struck down so young.
RIP forever.
2008-2010

Tsukasa Buddha · 4th August 2010, 04:35 PM

Yay, but still long from over.

quixotecoyote · 4th August 2010, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by paximperium

Poor Prop 8 struck down so young.
RIP forever.
2008-2010

Save the gravedigging until after the appeals. If it gets to the supreme court, who knows what will happen.

joe911 · 4th August 2010, 04:37 PM

Harvey Milk would be so proud!

Bikewer · 4th August 2010, 04:39 PM

Surely will end up at SCOTUS.... Attacking Prop 8 on the standpoint of equal rights seems to be the way to go on this. I can't say I'm entirely confident the Supreme Court will find in favor of this decision, but I lean that way.

Dunstan · 4th August 2010, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Great!

Now, this is a ruling in a federal court. There are, IIRC, more than a dozen other states that have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. What are the consequences for those laws?

No direct consequences for any other state. The actual judgment is only binding on the named defendants, the relevant officials in the state of California.

In terms of legal precedential value, it's still minimal, in that this is just one district court decision; it's not binding on any court. That could change if/when the 9th Circuit issues a decision on appeal (and, subsequently, the Supreme Court).

That's not to say these things don't matter. The Dover case on Intelligent Design was and is just a district court decision; any other judge could reach a different result in a similar case. But it was a well-written, well-reasoned decision after a thorough trial, and I think it's had a deterrent effect on other school districts.

paximperium · 4th August 2010, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Save the gravedigging until after the appeals. If it gets to the supreme court, who knows what will happen.

Poor Prop...holy crap zombie prop!
Blam...I think it's dead...

SezMe · 4th August 2010, 04:50 PM

IANAL but I think Dunstan is right that right now it only applies to CA. After the 9th Circuit gives its blessing (which I take to be a foregone conclusion - they may even decide not to hear it) then it applies District-wide. As others have said, it is the Supremes who will make it binding across the states. That case will be absolutely fascinating.

ravdin · 4th August 2010, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by paximperium

Poor Prop 8 struck down so young.
RIP forever.
2008-2010

Don't start popping the champagne corks yet. The ruling will be appealed and it will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. This was a good day, but it's not over.

SezMe · 4th August 2010, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught!

Even better, umpty-ump million mormon and catholic dollars down the drain.

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught!

Those votes are not relevant in a constitutional case. Don't you agree?

ddt · 4th August 2010, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dunstan

No direct consequences for any other state. The actual judgment is only binding on the named defendants, the relevant officials in the state of California.

In terms of legal precedential value, it's still minimal, in that this is just one district court decision; it's not binding on any court. That could change if/when the 9th Circuit issues a decision on appeal (and, subsequently, the Supreme Court).

That's not to say these things don't matter. The Dover case on Intelligent Design was and is just a district court decision; any other judge could reach a different result in a similar case. But it was a well-written, well-reasoned decision after a thorough trial, and I think it's had a deterrent effect on other school districts.

Thanks. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't go all the way to the SCOTUS. This is not the kind of case they'd reject. Is there an automatic right of appeal at the Circuit Court or can they reject too?

ETA: after reading SezMe's post: does a decision by the 9th Circuit only have precedential value within the 9th Circuit or all across the US?

Dunstan · 4th August 2010, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Thanks. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't go all the way to the SCOTUS. This is not the kind of case they'd reject.

You might be surprised. SCOTUS often keeps its hands off a topic until there's an actual "circuit split," i.e. two federal circuit courts (or state supreme courts) ruling differently on the same question.

But I agree with you that this is probably an "important" enough case that they'll grant cert if the 9th circuit affirms.

Quote:

Is there an automatic right of appeal at the Circuit Court or can they reject too?

Definitely a right of appeal. The 9th Circuit does have to issue a ruling. It doesn't have to issue a detailed opinion. (But the 9th no longer issues "unpublished" rulings.)

Quote:

ETA: after reading SezMe's post: does a decision by the 9th Circuit only have precedential value within the 9th Circuit or all across the US?

It's binding precedent on all federal courts in the 9th Circuit, meaning those courts are obliged to follow it (or distinguish it in some way). It is persuasive precedent everywhere else, meaning you can cite it as supporting authority, but a district court judge in another circuit can say, "sorry, I disagree, the 9th Circuit got it wrong."

bookitty · 4th August 2010, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught!

And?

WildCat · 4th August 2010, 05:24 PM

nvm, Dunstan covered it far better.

Dorian Gray · 4th August 2010, 05:24 PM

So Proposition 8 was...... upended?

Fnord · 4th August 2010, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

And?

It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election.

This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few).

I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense.

groupthinker · 4th August 2010, 05:53 PM

Well dang! I can marry my horse now! Or my pig. at this rate the dems will lose all 50 seats come november. dems the party of fags

PhreePhly · 4th August 2010, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election.

This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few).

I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense.

No, it makes the system of propositions pointless. There is a reason we have a checks and balance system in the constitution. Tyranny by the majority is dangerous. California is one of a handful of states that allows propositions on the ballot based soley on filing and gathering signatures. These propositions may not be constitutional. This is not the first proposition to be overturned by the courts and it won't be the last.

PhreePhly

The Central Scrutinizer · 4th August 2010, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

So Proposition 8 was...... upended?

Wouldn't it look the same either way?

The Central Scrutinizer · 4th August 2010, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election.

This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few).

I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense.

So you would have no problem if the majority of people voted to make slavery legal again?

The Central Scrutinizer · 4th August 2010, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by groupthinker

dems the party of fags

I'm pretty sure Republicans smoke too.

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2010, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Those votes are not relevant in a constitutional case. Don't you agree?

"Don't you agree?" was not rhetorical question btw, applecorped.

Originally Posted by Fnord

It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election.

This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few).

I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense.

I think you are unfamiliar with how the US system of laws work. A simple majority in one region of the country is not binding on the Constitution.

The Central Scrutinizer · 4th August 2010, 06:08 PM

I checked Pastor Phelps' website - there is no reference to this ruling. Maybe he's OK with it?

godofpie · 4th August 2010, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election.

This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few).

I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense.

We are a representative Democracy, not mob rule. Perhaps a government based on this would suit you better?

godofpie · 4th August 2010, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I'm pretty sure Republicans smoke too.

...and collect bundles of sticks.

ddt · 4th August 2010, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by PhreePhly

No, it makes the system of propositions pointless. There is a reason we have a checks and balance system in the constitution. Tyranny by the majority is dangerous. California is one of a handful of states that allows propositions on the ballot based soley on filing and gathering signatures. These propositions may not be constitutional. This is not the first proposition to be overturned by the courts and it won't be the last.

Why pointless? There's plenty of things that are legal to put on the ballot, e.g., how high the taxes are. IIRC, that's also the reason that California has a structural budget deficit.

It struck me at first also strange that the proposition is only challenged after it has been voted on and approved, but then, the proposition is a state thing and the challenge is in federal court.

4th August 2010, 03:23 PM	#1
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Prop 8 Overturned A judge has overturned Prop 8 in California which means gay marriage is legal. Here are a couple of quotes from the ruling which are bound to rankle the nutbars: Quote: The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. Quote: Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages

4th August 2010, 03:36 PM	#2
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Prop 8 Struck Down And the crowd goes wild.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

4th August 2010, 03:37 PM	#3
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,154	Woo Hoo!
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

4th August 2010, 03:40 PM	#4
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,154	Woo Hoo!
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

4th August 2010, 03:52 PM	#5
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Well, it looks like gay marriage will be legal by 2012. The Mayans were right.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

4th August 2010, 03:56 PM	#6
Accidental Martyr Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry. Posts: 1,852	Just saw this news a few minutes ago. Cool!
	__________________ "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" Kurt Vonnegut

4th August 2010, 04:01 PM	#7
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	This is just so great. There's still a ways to go but at least we're headed in the right direction.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

4th August 2010, 04:01 PM	#8
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	i am against the bigots who are against gay rights, more than i am against gay marriage. so..congrats. good triumphs over evil.

4th August 2010, 04:03 PM	#9
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	I honestly couldn't be happier. No, that's not true. I could have won the lottery, found out my son was already potty-trained, and received notification that a publisher wants to publish my book. But this is reasonably close. I opposed Prop 8 when it was on the ballot, was much chagrined when it was passed, and I'm thrilled that the initial challenge has been successful. Unfortunately, it's still too early to celebrate, as this ruling will most likely be appealed to a higher court.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us. Last edited by RobRoy; 4th August 2010 at 04:04 PM.

4th August 2010, 04:08 PM	#10
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	What are the odds of it being upheld by the Supremes? I give it a 50/50 shot...barring a radical change in the court of course. The key vote is Kennedy and he is a mixed bag on gay rights. He did favor striking sodomy laws so it isn't all bleak.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

4th August 2010, 04:13 PM	#11
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 And the crowd goes wild. This is fantastic. I can't remember the last time a news story actually made me shout out in joy. Let's hope it stands.
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499

4th August 2010, 04:28 PM	#12
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,323	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 And the crowd goes wild. Great! Now, this is a ruling in a federal court. There are, IIRC, more than a dozen other states that have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. What are the consequences for those laws?
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

4th August 2010, 04:29 PM	#13
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,656	Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught!
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

4th August 2010, 04:33 PM	#14
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Poor Prop 8 struck down so young. RIP forever. 2008-2010
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett Last edited by paximperium; 4th August 2010 at 04:34 PM.

4th August 2010, 04:35 PM	#15
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,905	Yay, but still long from over.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

4th August 2010, 04:37 PM	#16
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by paximperium Poor Prop 8 struck down so young. RIP forever. 2008-2010 Save the gravedigging until after the appeals. If it gets to the supreme court, who knows what will happen.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

4th August 2010, 04:37 PM	#17
joe911 Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hull,England Posts: 286	Harvey Milk would be so proud!
	__________________ Jordan Ryan Facebook \|Email\|

4th August 2010, 04:39 PM	#18
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,528	Surely will end up at SCOTUS.... Attacking Prop 8 on the standpoint of equal rights seems to be the way to go on this. I can't say I'm entirely confident the Supreme Court will find in favor of this decision, but I lean that way.

4th August 2010, 04:39 PM	#19
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by ddt Great! Now, this is a ruling in a federal court. There are, IIRC, more than a dozen other states that have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. What are the consequences for those laws? No direct consequences for any other state. The actual judgment is only binding on the named defendants, the relevant officials in the state of California. In terms of legal precedential value, it's still minimal, in that this is just one district court decision; it's not binding on any court. That could change if/when the 9th Circuit issues a decision on appeal (and, subsequently, the Supreme Court). That's not to say these things don't matter. The Dover case on Intelligent Design was and is just a district court decision; any other judge could reach a different result in a similar case. But it was a well-written, well-reasoned decision after a thorough trial, and I think it's had a deterrent effect on other school districts.

4th August 2010, 04:49 PM	#20
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Save the gravedigging until after the appeals. If it gets to the supreme court, who knows what will happen. Poor Prop...holy crap zombie prop! Blam...I think it's dead...
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

4th August 2010, 04:50 PM	#21
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	IANAL but I think Dunstan is right that right now it only applies to CA. After the 9th Circuit gives its blessing (which I take to be a foregone conclusion - they may even decide not to hear it) then it applies District-wide. As others have said, it is the Supremes who will make it binding across the states. That case will be absolutely fascinating.

4th August 2010, 04:52 PM	#22
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,557	Originally Posted by paximperium Poor Prop 8 struck down so young. RIP forever. 2008-2010 Don't start popping the champagne corks yet. The ruling will be appealed and it will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. This was a good day, but it's not over.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

4th August 2010, 04:53 PM	#23
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by applecorped Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught! Even better, umpty-ump million mormon and catholic dollars down the drain.

4th August 2010, 04:55 PM	#24
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by applecorped Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught! Those votes are not relevant in a constitutional case. Don't you agree?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 4th August 2010 at 04:57 PM.

4th August 2010, 05:00 PM	#25
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,323	Originally Posted by Dunstan No direct consequences for any other state. The actual judgment is only binding on the named defendants, the relevant officials in the state of California. In terms of legal precedential value, it's still minimal, in that this is just one district court decision; it's not binding on any court. That could change if/when the 9th Circuit issues a decision on appeal (and, subsequently, the Supreme Court). That's not to say these things don't matter. The Dover case on Intelligent Design was and is just a district court decision; any other judge could reach a different result in a similar case. But it was a well-written, well-reasoned decision after a thorough trial, and I think it's had a deterrent effect on other school districts. Thanks. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't go all the way to the SCOTUS. This is not the kind of case they'd reject. Is there an automatic right of appeal at the Circuit Court or can they reject too? ETA: after reading SezMe's post: does a decision by the 9th Circuit only have precedential value within the 9th Circuit or all across the US?
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group Last edited by ddt; 4th August 2010 at 05:01 PM.

4th August 2010, 05:10 PM	#26
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by ddt Thanks. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't go all the way to the SCOTUS. This is not the kind of case they'd reject. You might be surprised. SCOTUS often keeps its hands off a topic until there's an actual "circuit split," i.e. two federal circuit courts (or state supreme courts) ruling differently on the same question. But I agree with you that this is probably an "important" enough case that they'll grant cert if the 9th circuit affirms. Quote: Is there an automatic right of appeal at the Circuit Court or can they reject too? Definitely a right of appeal. The 9th Circuit does have to issue a ruling. It doesn't have to issue a detailed opinion. (But the 9th no longer issues "unpublished" rulings.) Quote: ETA: after reading SezMe's post: does a decision by the 9th Circuit only have precedential value within the 9th Circuit or all across the US? It's binding precedent on all federal courts in the 9th Circuit, meaning those courts are obliged to follow it (or distinguish it in some way). It is persuasive precedent everywhere else, meaning you can cite it as supporting authority, but a district court judge in another circuit can say, "sorry, I disagree, the 9th Circuit got it wrong."

4th August 2010, 05:18 PM	#27
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by applecorped Yea! 6.3 million votes for naught! And?
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

4th August 2010, 05:24 PM	#28
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,048	nvm, Dunstan covered it far better.
	Last edited by WildCat; 4th August 2010 at 05:27 PM.

4th August 2010, 05:24 PM	#29
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	So Proposition 8 was...... upended?
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

4th August 2010, 05:43 PM	#30
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by bookitty And? It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election. This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few). I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

4th August 2010, 05:53 PM	#31
groupthinker Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 59	Well dang! I can marry my horse now! Or my pig. at this rate the dems will lose all 50 seats come november. dems the party of fags
groupthinker Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 59

4th August 2010, 05:56 PM	#32
PhreePhly Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 206	Originally Posted by Fnord It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election. This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few). I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense. No, it makes the system of propositions pointless. There is a reason we have a checks and balance system in the constitution. Tyranny by the majority is dangerous. California is one of a handful of states that allows propositions on the ballot based soley on filing and gathering signatures. These propositions may not be constitutional. This is not the first proposition to be overturned by the courts and it won't be the last. PhreePhly
PhreePhly Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 206

4th August 2010, 05:57 PM	#33
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,276	Originally Posted by Dorian Gray So Proposition 8 was...... upended? Wouldn't it look the same either way?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

4th August 2010, 05:58 PM	#34
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,276	Originally Posted by Fnord It makes voting rather pointless when a handful of people can go whine to a sympathetic (e.g., manipulable) judge and negate the will of the majority of voters in a legal election. This is no longer a Democracy (Government by the People), it has become a Kritarchy (Government by Judges) and a Oligarchy (Government by the Few). I hope that the Justices of the Supreme court have better sense. So you would have no problem if the majority of people voted to make slavery legal again?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

4th August 2010, 05:59 PM	#35
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,276	Originally Posted by groupthinker dems the party of fags I'm pretty sure Republicans smoke too.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.