Remember that whole "Prop 8" thing? Yeah...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I can look up the Fed rule's (or would it be Cali's rules of appellate procedure? I think it would be federal) but here's the standing that the judge appears to be referencing. He seems to be addressing a.

a. actual injury (not hypothetical, conjecture)
b. causation (fairly traceable to defendants conduct - analyze this on exam, can't be attenuated)
c. redressability (needs to be likely to solve grievance)

Also, it was some sort of association that brought the suit right?

4. Associations will have standing if
a. members would have standing
b. interests of the association seeks to protect relate to associations purpose
c. neither the claim itself nor the relief requested require the individual participation of association members

I honestly don't know what the injury would be other than you spend millions, get the vote you want, and one person overturns the vote.

[Kellanved]

They could argue that under California law they have the right to have standing in place of the governor or attorney general, the trick is convincing the entire 9th circuit and supreme court of said standing. As much is pointed out in the article.

A few cases got mentioned on my morning radio shows on the way in to work (Arizonans for Official English vs Arizona and Karcher vs May) for precedent but I don't quite have time to read both opinions. Either way, the pro-prop 8 folks don't have very long to prove a case for legal standing in order to extend a stay of the ruling.

On the subject of standing, where the issue is constitutional, federal law is supreme and California law is irrelevant, and they are federal court anyway, so (federal rules)

Assuming the defendants’ intervenor status were granted under FRCP 24(a)2, the intervenor can essentially participate in the litigation as a party. The issue then turns on the federal court’s division on whether a 24(a)2 intervenor must also satisfy Article III standing requirements or that status alone is enough to confer standing.

If the status alone is not enough, as noted it’s doubtful whether those defendants can satisfy AIII standing requirements. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, standing under AIII requires:

(1) Injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest, threatened or imminent future harm of said interest can be alleged as injury in fact, can not be based on conjectures or hypothetical

(2) Causation – the claimed injury can be fairly traced to the challenged conduct (proximate cause)

(3) redressability – a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision/prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of favorable ruling is not too speculative.

Evidently the key obstacle that those defendants will have to surmount is that first requirement. Generally, there is no standing to sue as a concerned citizen/on behalf of the general public, due to the abstract nature of an injury that all citizens share.

[Rhinox]

Fear not a Cure for Homosexuality is underway.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,5576220.story

It's a start!

[Xno Kappa]

Did you just discover Big Trouble in Little China? Curious.

[Tempyst]

Other legal analysts think the appeals court will allow the group that raised $40 million to pass Proposition 8 to formally challenge Walker's ruling.

"What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

Boy imagine how many soup kitchens or similar community outreach programs could have been funded with 40 million dollars. Jesus sure does love helping the less fortunate, especially to the tune of 40 million dollars.

[Rhinox]

Did you just discover Big Trouble in Little China? Curious.

Do I seriously need a reason? When you changed your avatar did you just discover Foster's home for imaginary friends?


To answer your question no.

[Acturus]

Boy imagine how many soup kitchens or similar community outreach programs could have been funded with 40 million dollars. Jesus sure does love helping the less fortunate, especially to the tune of 40 million dollars.

What does Jesus have to do with marriage?

[Cantih]

Do I seriously need a reason? When you changed your avatar did you just discover Foster's home for imaginary friends?


To answer your question no.

Also, on this subject, wasn't his handle Hirokei Kazei?

What is going on with all the alterations?

[Xno Kappa]

Do I seriously need a reason? When you changed your avatar did you just discover Foster's home for imaginary friends?


To answer your question no.

In my defense, my avatar has always been Bloo. Just sayin.

[Maaglin]

Why is this issue so geared to gays and only gays? There's a whole list of people and groups who might desire to gain the benefits of marriage, but who are not able to because the state wont grant them to them. I'm talking specifically about the benefits granted by the government. Not the contract you enter into when you get married. Those are technically two different things.

Gay couples can today enter into a marriage contract. But if they do, the state still wont grant them the benefits. In the same way, a pair of siblings could enter into a marriage contract, but the sate wont grant them benefits for doing so either.

Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around? There is a contract which you agree to enter when you get married. This includes all the agreements which exist between the parties of the contract. Like shared property, income, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

There are *also* a set of state granted benefits. Those benefits require that you meet a set of criteria. One of those criteria is that you agree to enter into the contract. Another is that you be a couple. Another is that the couple not consist of two people who are close relations. Another is that both parties be able to enter into the contract. Another is that neither party are already bound by an existing marriage contract. And finally... one of the conditions is that the couple consist of a male and a female.

The criteria which prevents gay couples from gaining access to those state benefits is only one of a list of criteria. This is not my opinion. It's a fact.

If you are to argue that the criteria which excludes gay couples from gaining those benefits is unconstitutional, you have to discover what the purpose of the criteria and benefits are in the first place. The SCotUS test for discrimination is that it is allowable if the discrimination is consistent with the purpose of the law. So it's not unconstitutional to set the voting age at 18 because the intent of the law is to limit it to people who are old enough to make sound decisions about their lives and the world around them, for example. It's also not unconstitutional to create a housing program which targets poor minority neighborhoods if the purpose is to help address disproportionate housing among said groups.

It's not automatically unconstitutional to have discriminatory criteria. You have to examine the law, determine its purpose, and determine if the discriminatory criteria is consistent with that purpose (and if the purpose itself is not unconstitutional of course). A purpose of "encourage children to be born in an environment in which both biological parents are bound by marriage contract" is consistent. It matches all of the criteria in the marriage statute in question. And it absolutely means that not granting said benefits to gay couples is *not* unconstitutional discrimination.

If you can't even noodle out why we have those benefits, then you can't possibly hold an intelligent position on the question at hand. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

[Tempyst]

wow I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the shit storm this causes

[Psion]

Problem with that logic is, it's unconstitutional because there is no purpose to excluding gay couples from marriage, due to the fact there is absolutely not one shred of credible evidence (no, catholic.com "studies" do not count) that male/female parents are a better environment than two parents of the same gender. In fact, all studies done show that children raised by both are the same in all areas, such as financial, physical, mental, and social well being; or even more amusingly, the gay parents win out as better parents! (this is because children of gay parents are pretty much all planned, no accidental births before parents are ready, etc. Possibly gay parents have been through hell with discrimination and are able to teach their kids to be better people socially as well. <.<)

However, on the negative side, there IS harm being done to gay couples denied benefits of marriage, and more importantly, their children. If your goal is to give stable homes to children, then gay marriage is the logical choice. Oh wait, did I say gay marriage? I meant marriage for all couples. There is no "gay marriage", and it isn't what gay couples want. They just want marriage.

17% of gay couples have children, either adopted or through surrogates. That's a lot of kids and parents who are suffering due to lack of benefits that straight couples and children get. Then there's the stress and discrimination that comes from being said your love is second class at best, which racks up health care costs and puts financial burden on the state. You see what I'm getting at? Denying gay couples the right to marry means you are losing money (from increased health care costs, programs to help gay people discriminated against, less couples able to adopt children, so higher orphanage costs plus the gods know orphanages aren't the best places for children to grow up sound, so that's more costs in the future, loss of economic growth from no gay couples marrying and all the spending associated with it, etc.) while by letting them marry, you lower costs, increase revenue, and as a bonus, lower discrimination, improve societal health, and make a lot of people very very happy! (also piss off lots of bible thumper hicks, which alone should make anyone in favor of marriage for gay couples.

There is no logical reason to deny gay couples marriage, and plenty of financial, economic, societal, ethical, and logical reasons to give them the same benefits as anyone else. The whole thing shouldn't have even taken a fraction of this time to be working toward a brighter future, and only the dogma of religion has been a barrier to progress. Not a surprise there, as religion has always been at war at spirituality, that quiet voice that many try to silence, the one that tells you to be kind to others, learn to accept others differences, and to live and let live. Religion's only purpose is to create fear of anyone that's not of your religion, to control a populace. Any sane person wouldn't believe in religion at all. Does that mean the gods don't exist? Who knows, but that's what spirituality is for. The wild divine has granted you logic as a gift, so why not use it?

Each of us is different, but so long as no one is outright hurting each other emotionally or physically, then it should be accepted. Offense does not matter. No matter what you do, there are ton's of people who will be offended and disgusted by it. But does it matter? Not really, so long as offense is all it extends to. I might be offended by the way someone talks, but am i actually harmed by it? No, and i can simply walk away, ignore the person, or politely ask them if they can refrain from that behavior when in my presence if it really cannot be escaped. But it is within their right to refuse, so long as I am not harmed. If that is the case, then the person who needs to stop, is not the offender, but the person who is offended needs to stop taking it so seriously.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everyone is different, and those differences are not going to go away because you try to force it. An acorn can only grow into an oak tree; a willow seed can only grow into a willow. But those differences are what make us strong... by each of us filling in a different role, we can all work together to weather anything that comes our way, whether it be the winds of change that the willow bends to and breaks up into gentle breezes, protecting the rigid oak from being uprooted; or the oak tree that grows tall and can withstand the mighty blasts of lightning that would destroy a willow. Each of us has our part to play, one we cannot change. We can however, grow and adapt to our circumstances. A willow cannot be an oak, but it's form can be changed to fit the circumstances to some extent.

Religion is a bane that limits a persons logical and spiritual thinking, keeping vital nutrients, light, and moisture from reaching a person's soul, stunting it's growth. Only by exposing yourself to the world, learning and living, thinking and accepting, can you grow into a light that shines on the world, one that grants strength to others just by being there. This is one reason why gay marriages should be allowed. Allowing this cycle of hatred and bigotry to continue is like blocking the sun's light. It has far reaching consequences, affecting the lives of all within the world. America saying that gay marriages are worthless isn't just telling americans the love of gay couples is trash, it's telling people around the world that it's OK to discriminate against gay couples. By ending this, one will shine a bit of light into the souls of everyone on the planet, helping to end the root of all evil: the fear of those who are different from us.

Just as a crystal has many facets, and many colored lights, so too, does our race have many faces and many souls, making up one beautiful whole. I say we end this hatred as soon as possible, before its darkness consumes that beauty for good.




(and this is what I get for writing a post at 4 AM. ._. I bet by the time morning comes this post is going to look horribly incoherent and not make its point across /sigh)

[Acturus]

Why is this issue so geared to gays and only gays? There's a whole list of people and groups who might desire to gain the benefits of marriage, but who are not able to because the state wont grant them to them. I'm talking specifically about the benefits granted by the government. Not the contract you enter into when you get married. Those are technically two different things.

Gay couples can today enter into a marriage contract. But if they do, the state still wont grant them the benefits. In the same way, a pair of siblings could enter into a marriage contract, but the sate wont grant them benefits for doing so either.

Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around? There is a contract which you agree to enter when you get married. This includes all the agreements which exist between the parties of the contract. Like shared property, income, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

There are *also* a set of state granted benefits. Those benefits require that you meet a set of criteria. One of those criteria is that you agree to enter into the contract. Another is that you be a couple. Another is that the couple not consist of two people who are close relations. Another is that both parties be able to enter into the contract. Another is that neither party are already bound by an existing marriage contract. And finally... one of the conditions is that the couple consist of a male and a female.

The criteria which prevents gay couples from gaining access to those state benefits is only one of a list of criteria. This is not my opinion. It's a fact.

If you are to argue that the criteria which excludes gay couples from gaining those benefits is unconstitutional, you have to discover what the purpose of the criteria and benefits are in the first place. The SCotUS test for discrimination is that it is allowable if the discrimination is consistent with the purpose of the law. So it's not unconstitutional to set the voting age at 18 because the intent of the law is to limit it to people who are old enough to make sound decisions about their lives and the world around them, for example. It's also not unconstitutional to create a housing program which targets poor minority neighborhoods if the purpose is to help address disproportionate housing among said groups.

It's not automatically unconstitutional to have discriminatory criteria. You have to examine the law, determine its purpose, and determine if the discriminatory criteria is consistent with that purpose (and if the purpose itself is not unconstitutional of course). A purpose of "encourage children to be born in an environment in which both biological parents are bound by marriage contract" is consistent. It matches all of the criteria in the marriage statute in question. And it absolutely means that not granting said benefits to gay couples is *not* unconstitutional discrimination.

If you can't even noodle out why we have those benefits, then you can't possibly hold an intelligent position on the question at hand. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Rhinox]

Hey guys, straight sterile people and women over 45 aren't and shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't produce children.

Also sex should only be used as procreation and not recreation.


Yeah sounds like a pretty stupid argument to me too.

[Cyn]

Incoherent rambling, albeit spelled correctly and in proper grammar.

KJHGSE&W)*$&UI$JBWF:L(E*&()$*T$I:WGN:D)(*WOGHNJKDV GAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kuya]

Why is this issue so geared to gays and only gays? There's a whole list of people and groups who might desire to gain the benefits of marriage, but who are not able to because the state wont grant them to them. I'm talking specifically about the benefits granted by the government. Not the contract you enter into when you get married. Those are technically two different things.

Gay couples can today enter into a marriage contract. But if they do, the state still wont grant them the benefits. In the same way, a pair of siblings could enter into a marriage contract, but the sate wont grant them benefits for doing so either.

Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around? There is a contract which you agree to enter when you get married. This includes all the agreements which exist between the parties of the contract. Like shared property, income, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

There are *also* a set of state granted benefits. Those benefits require that you meet a set of criteria. One of those criteria is that you agree to enter into the contract. Another is that you be a couple. Another is that the couple not consist of two people who are close relations. Another is that both parties be able to enter into the contract. Another is that neither party are already bound by an existing marriage contract. And finally... one of the conditions is that the couple consist of a male and a female.

The criteria which prevents gay couples from gaining access to those state benefits is only one of a list of criteria. This is not my opinion. It's a fact.

If you are to argue that the criteria which excludes gay couples from gaining those benefits is unconstitutional, you have to discover what the purpose of the criteria and benefits are in the first place. The SCotUS test for discrimination is that it is allowable if the discrimination is consistent with the purpose of the law. So it's not unconstitutional to set the voting age at 18 because the intent of the law is to limit it to people who are old enough to make sound decisions about their lives and the world around them, for example. It's also not unconstitutional to create a housing program which targets poor minority neighborhoods if the purpose is to help address disproportionate housing among said groups.

It's not automatically unconstitutional to have discriminatory criteria. You have to examine the law, determine its purpose, and determine if the discriminatory criteria is consistent with that purpose (and if the purpose itself is not unconstitutional of course). A purpose of "encourage children to be born in an environment in which both biological parents are bound by marriage contract" is consistent. It matches all of the criteria in the marriage statute in question. And it absolutely means that not granting said benefits to gay couples is *not* unconstitutional discrimination.

If you can't even noodle out why we have those benefits, then you can't possibly hold an intelligent position on the question at hand. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

Do you realize that at no point in this post did you present a justifiable, logical, concrete, secular, reason for why sex should be an excluding criteria?

[Alleya]

Do you realize that at no point in this post did you present a justifiable, logical, concrete, secular, reason for why sex should be an excluding criteria?

Because laws and stuff, don't be ignerint you're being ignerint.

[Drex]

Hey, christians aren't being discriminatory, god is. Don't blame the messengers!

lulz

[Kellanved]

Why is this issue so geared to gays and only gays? There's a whole list of people and groups who might desire to gain the benefits of marriage, but who are not able to because the state wont grant them to them. I'm talking specifically about the benefits granted by the government. Not the contract you enter into when you get married. Those are technically two different things.

Gay couples can today enter into a marriage contract. But if they do, the state still wont grant them the benefits. In the same way, a pair of siblings could enter into a marriage contract, but the sate wont grant them benefits for doing so either.

Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around? There is a contract which you agree to enter when you get married. This includes all the agreements which exist between the parties of the contract. Like shared property, income, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

There are *also* a set of state granted benefits. Those benefits require that you meet a set of criteria. One of those criteria is that you agree to enter into the contract. Another is that you be a couple. Another is that the couple not consist of two people who are close relations. Another is that both parties be able to enter into the contract. Another is that neither party are already bound by an existing marriage contract. And finally... one of the conditions is that the couple consist of a male and a female.

The criteria which prevents gay couples from gaining access to those state benefits is only one of a list of criteria. This is not my opinion. It's a fact.

If you are to argue that the criteria which excludes gay couples from gaining those benefits is unconstitutional, you have to discover what the purpose of the criteria and benefits are in the first place. The SCotUS test for discrimination is that it is allowable if the discrimination is consistent with the purpose of the law. So it's not unconstitutional to set the voting age at 18 because the intent of the law is to limit it to people who are old enough to make sound decisions about their lives and the world around them, for example. It's also not unconstitutional to create a housing program which targets poor minority neighborhoods if the purpose is to help address disproportionate housing among said groups.

It's not automatically unconstitutional to have discriminatory criteria. You have to examine the law, determine its purpose, and determine if the discriminatory criteria is consistent with that purpose (and if the purpose itself is not unconstitutional of course). A purpose of "encourage children to be born in an environment in which both biological parents are bound by marriage contract" is consistent. It matches all of the criteria in the marriage statute in question. And it absolutely means that not granting said benefits to gay couples is *not* unconstitutional discrimination.

If you can't even noodle out why we have those benefits, then you can't possibly hold an intelligent position on the question at hand. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

Your understanding of constitutional law is lacking anyway. What’s instantly evident to most of the people responding to you is that any random state “purpose” is not sufficient.

The portion of the constitution that’s relevant states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The criteria you listed are part of State made law. Do you see the connection? And the “SCotUS test for discrimination” you’re referring to are properly called “standards of review,” they are the “measures” that the court will use to analyze the State’s action in question. Generally, and listed in order of deference afforded the State/whatever actor they are reviewing: Rational Basis, Close scrutiny, Strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review, meaning they will give no deference to the State’s arguments for discriminatory conduct.

Rational basis is the lowest standard of review, meaning as long as there is a rational relation between the discriminatory conduct and a legitimate legislative purpose, the court will defer to the State.

The court looks for particular factors in determining which standard of review to apply. Regardless of which standard is applied, you don’t understand what you’re talking about much.

[Correction]

Aaaaand blocked. Hate wins again yay.