Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The "standing" issue is really unsettling to me. You have a majority of voters pass a proposition. One person can challenge it in court and if the attorney general of the state isn't interested in supporting the proposition, it gets overturned by default? That really seems to short-circuit the democratic process. This would mean any referendum passed by the people can be tossed aside if the current government doesn't support it.

On another note- isnt the AG shirking his duty here?

Depends on whether you view elected officials in Jeffersonian or Burkean terms. Jefferson held that an elected official should reflect the will of her constituency. Burke held that an elected official should work for the long term best interests of their constituency EVEN if that meant opposing the will of that constituency in the short term. I would venture to guess that most of the officials in California believe that restricting marriage to hetersexual unions is morally wrong and that they are duty bound to oppose the short-sighted electorate on the issue.

[rory_20_uk]

Interesting. I'm sure everyone thinks of themselves as Burkean in nature, as after all this enables one to override all opposition as the other side clearly needs saving from itself.

[Beskar]

Interesting. I'm sure everyone thinks of themselves as Burkean in nature, as after all this enables one to override all opposition as the other side clearly needs saving from itself.

Indeed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Xiahou:

I would suggest that that is exactly the system that obtains. If Schwarzeneggar and enough of the legislature wish to do elsewise, then elsewise it shall be. The voters may turn them out of office via recall or at the next balloting if they are scandalized enough. Unfortunately, enough will forget before the next balloting that this may not motivate the representatives enough to support the constitutional choice of a modest majority of Californians.

In the specific instance of California, I think their simple majority rule for Constitutional changes is coming back to haunt them here. The gov is not seeking another term so he feels free to do as he sees fit. Moreover, he can get political support because the majority that voted YES on this issue was modest -- and many in the legislature know that not enough of their voters will turn on them over this to be decisive. If Cali had a 2/3 rule for such changes, they'd be less frequent but VERY hard to ignore. 67% is not just a majority choice, its a mandate.

[PanzerJaeger]

The ruling has been upheld by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would be surprised if the Supreme Court took it. The ruling by the federal appeals court is very narrow and only specifically concerns the state of California, not the status of same sex marriage for the entire country. Prop 8 supporters would gain more by leaving it as is instead of risking a nationwide SCOTUS ruling.

[Whacker]

What logical hopsctoch?

A man's inability to perform on the wedding Night is also grounds for annullment, or did you just ignore that?

Marriage is a legal contract, intended to be indisoluable, designed to provide a stable environment for the couple's children, and to afford those children legal protection.

Wrong. Marriage is a method for two people to join themselves legally, which affords them certain legal rights and privileges.

I agree that minds have to be changed as well as laws, but keep in mind that right now somewhere in this country a gay man or woman is being denied visitation access to his or her partner in the hospital. I read a particularly compelling story where a woman was barred from being at her partner of 23 year’s side as she lay dying of cancer.

This is all conceptual to us. Is it constitutional or isn’t it? To these people though, it is a stark reality. They’re living the discrimination, and I can definitely see why they would feel like second class citizens.

Indeed, I hear stories like that quite often, and it does become reality for me when I hear the sadness and pain in my friend's voices. Treating this like it's not an issues of rights is ridiculous.

[Veho Nex]

The ruling has been upheld by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.

CLEAR! *Shocks thread* It's alive!!!

[Whacker]

The ruling has been upheld by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.

I've read a few op-ed bits from different places that tend to agree this probably won't make it to the US Federal Supreme Court. The actual legal issues that were ruled on seem to be pretty specific to the California state legislative and legal processes. Guess we will wait and see.

[Hooahguy]

The ruling has been upheld by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.

Hooray for justice!

[Xiahou]

Depends on whether you view elected officials in Jeffersonian or Burkean terms. Jefferson held that an elected official should reflect the will of her constituency. Burke held that an elected official should work for the long term best interests of their constituency EVEN if that meant opposing the will of that constituency in the short term. I would venture to guess that most of the officials in California believe that restricting marriage to hetersexual unions is morally wrong and that they are duty bound to oppose the short-sighted electorate on the issue.

For just a moment, set aside the gay marriage issue. The logical extension of this is that any law passed by the legislature or by referendum can be cast aside as long as the Governor and AG oppose it. Take any law, challenge it in court, have the AG no-show, and the law gets overturned. The referendum process becomes meaningless if the current regime doesn't support it.

Interesting. I'm sure everyone thinks of themselves as Burkean in nature, as after all this enables one to override all opposition as the other side clearly needs saving from itself.

I'm pretty sure the AG's oath of office is to support the laws of the state. Not to support only the laws he likes. The California Supreme Court already determined that the law was legally enacted- which is why it was elevated to the federal courts. As a duly passed amendment to the state's constitution, I don't see where he can get off on just saying "pass".