Town Square

Post a New Topic

CA Supreme Court tackles Prop 8 appeal issue

Original post made on Sep 7, 2011

At a hearing in San Francisco this morning, California Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to recommend allowing the sponsors of Proposition 8 to appeal a federal trial court ruling striking down the initiative.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 6, 2011, 1:42 PM

Comments (16)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Duffy
a resident of Danville
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:23 am

To quote, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, "An initiative measure is an indication of the voters' will."

End of argument!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:00 am

Nah, Duffy -- that's just the temporary end of the wrong argument.

We don't put people's fundamental rights up to a popular vote in this country, we enshrine those rights in Constitutional concepts like "Equal Protection under the Law." This is that kind of an issue -- the legitimate rights of a minority who will never command a majority, but whose lives matter nonetheless. American lives. Maybe they're not Your life, but they are the lives of people you know, and may care about.

Your continuing hostility to that very simple, irresistible and inevitable concept baffles me. In a very literal sense: "What's it to You?"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Alamo
on Sep 7, 2011 at 10:20 am

Why is it liberals believe in the right to your day in court unless they disagree with the plaintiff?

The voters passed Prop 8 and now it's up to the courts to decide it's legality. That's the way the system works. Either support that system or work to change it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Farmer Dave
a resident of another community
on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:12 am

Farmer Dave is a registered user.

@Dave:

Why is it that conservatives believe the constitution and bill of rights are sacrosanct except when they conflict with their misguided beliefs?

Many of the rights stated in the constitution are there to ensure that the majority cannot override the rights of a minority.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Sep 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Moreover, why do the righties and teanuts scream "LESS GOVERNMENTS LESS GOVERNMENT" until they are hoarse, yet they seem unable to keep their snoots out of other people's business? And what is this bizarre obsession with gay people anyway? The planets biggest hypocrites at every single turn.
Make no mistake - this LDS church-originated measure will eventually go down in flames, if not sooner then later.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Danville
on Sep 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm

I find it interesting that homosexual sympathizers are only open to diveristy to the point it does not cross their agenda, and if so then these thoughts that run counter to homosexual agenda are purged from the Danville Town Forum. Thus the homosexual agenda does not and cannot stand up to scrutiny. Adios!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cardinal
a resident of Diablo
on Sep 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm

@ Observer: you wanna try that again, with actual coherence? This HS would like to understand what the hell you're talking about.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by GG
a resident of Danville
on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:08 pm

Would the opponents of Prop 8 have complained that the vote was unconstitutional if they had prevailed?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jonathan
a resident of Danville
on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:53 pm

This debate has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. It is purely about taking rights away from others. Had Prop 8 taken away straight marriages, wouldn't the conservative Danville residents make a fight to get that back? Conservative/liberal values should be in regards to philosophy on fiscal policy. This is a human right.

Remember, those of you who feel marriage between a man and a woman is "God's will" are constitutionally allowed to feel that way. If Prop 8 failed, any church refusing to marry a gay couple could never ever be sued. Your st8 marriage in a church means nothing other than what you feel it is to God, its the certificate you get from the state that makes it legal and official. This is purely legal recognition under the gov't and a legal certificate.

Finally those that say marriage is an institution that goes back thousands of years fail to realize, same sex couples did get married in ancient times, and, most marriages over past 2000 years were arranged or part of legal deals for land. Only in last 150 years with progression of technology and progressive politics are couples seeking marriage out of love and not necessity, shouldn't two men or two women who were born wired to love someone of same sex be entitled for the same?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Sep 8, 2011 at 7:51 am

Uh, GG? I fear that you may be unclear on the concept, so here's some help: the complaint here is that the Proposition is a violation of the Constitution. If the Prop had failed instead of narrowly prevailing, it would be discarded as just another scrap of misguided policy, and no -- there would be no reason for opponents to complain. No complaint except about the fact that their rights were put to a majority vote, at all, and they had to put all that time and effort into that defense instead of something else.

Perhaps a question to ponder is whether You'd object if Your fundamental rights were put to a popular vote -- rights that you maybe take for granted, like the right to get married to the person you love. I'm guessing you would -- as would I.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by guynextdoor
a resident of Danville
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:49 am

If P-8 is overturned, will it mean that marriage will be exclusively between two humans? If so, will there be another challenge?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cardinal
a resident of Diablo
on Sep 8, 2011 at 10:36 am

Why do you ask, Guy? Remember: that spaniel has to be capable of consenting to such a union with you (and spaniels are generally smarter than that).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jonathan
a resident of Danville
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm

"If P-8 is overturned, will it mean that marriage will be exclusively between two humans? If so, will there be another challenge?"

This is a good question. So yes if Prop 8 is overturned I guess marriage indeed would be exclusively between two humans. Moving beyond that, again its a legal document from the government. This legal document's whole existence is to provide benefits for two people only (estate planning, joint tax filings, medical benefits etc.) So anyone that then challenges that and petitions for a 3 way marriage, or marriage w/ animal, etc will be denied immediately by the government. Now moving forward if they try to pull a prop 8 and put it to popular vote, it will never pass.

Scientifically beyond policy issues 99.9% of all humans in the world desire single pair bond with another human. So if Prop 8 is overturned, the gays that want to get married, get that right, and it will be end of subject. So if that .01 percent of population petition policy change to allow marriage beyond 2 people, they are going against both the hetero population and now the gay population who will both see eye to eye on value of pair bond as well as against the gov't that logistically only accommodates those benefits for two people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Danville
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Homosexuals and the government can call it whatever they want, the rest of us know exactly what it is.

@Cardinal...concentrate and focus, surely you can follow logic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Danville
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:51 pm

To Duffy at the beginning of this string of comments: what if the will of the people was to ship all Jews to camps as it was in Germany in the 1930s? The will of the people prevailed in Germany at that time and resulted in the extermination of at least 6 million Jews and the deaths of 50 million more Russians, Poles, Czechs, French, British, Italians, Dutch, Belgians, North Africans, Americans and many others too numerous to mention.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cardinal
a resident of Diablo
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:59 pm

@ Obsvr: My focus is fine; your syntax is a mess. Please try again.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 21 comments | 1,513 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 977 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 961 views