Today the California Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether or not the sponsors of Proposition 8 are entitled to appeal the ruling that overturned the ban on same-sex marriage in California.
Prop. 8 was challenged by two same-sex couples, and state officials refused to defend it. The law's supporter Protectmarriage.com was allowed to defend it in court by Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker then ruled that the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.
Supporters of Prop. 8 have since appealed this ruling, but their legal standing to defend Prop. 8 is now being challenged. According to Southern California Public Radio, the attorney for the gay couples who challenge Prop. 8, Theodore Boutrous, says, "To bring an appeal, you have to show that you are injured."
Boutrous argues that Prop. 8’s defenders have yet to show how allowing gays to marry in California hurts anyone.
According to the L.A. Times, protectmarriage.com could lose its standing under federal law if it loses in the State Supreme Court.
Andy Pugno, attorney for Prop. 8, is quoted in an SCPR article, saying, "It really is just an absurd result that you can have the people trying to exercise this fundamental right to pass laws themselves but then the governor and the attorney general can veto that by just refusing to defend it in court."
Each side will present arguments during the hearing today. The court will rule 90 days after arguments are presented.
Eventually that fight for equality will be won. However, the issue you raise is a legal minefield. What we have is a proposition passed by popular mandate (whether you agree or disagree that people should have a right to deny rights to others by a simple, narrow majority vote is a different thing), and the proposition is being challenged. Neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown want Prop 8 to stand, so what they both did is refuse to defend it. The legal impact of this is to grant the governor a virtual veto over propositions. Do not like it? Get someone to file a lawsuit, and then do not defend it. (Or concede) So tomorrow, should we have a governor who opposes any taxation, but a popular proposition passes authorizing taxes for, say, improving schools, what would happen if some group sued to halt the implementation, and he simply refused to defend? He'll effectively have killed a proposition with this veto. I can understand why the ninth circuit punted it back to the state supreme court. "Isn't Obama doing the same thing?" Obama's position on DOMA is more subtle. What he has done is to say that DOMA stands as legally passed, only that he does not want the DOJ to defend it, since his team finds it unconstitutional. He punted back to Congress. So he'll enforce, but not defend.
Hell, they are protesting ABC for allowing Chaz Bono on for the simple reason that it humanizes their enemy.
I say let anybody marry anyone they want to, as many as they want to, and as often, and without regard to gender or race. Oh, you mean the issue is really down to insurance con- I mean companies, deciding who and how many they'll insure when employees want equivalent benefits that their heterosexual workmates get. Oh, you mean you want to control what goes on in the workin' stiff's bedroom when the Kochs get a free ride tax-wise; for religious reasons, of course. Got it.
I also think that if we leave the lawmaking to people we'll end up with a bunch of unconstitutional laws. The State needs to be able to deny defending laws they know the court will overrule because it's a complete waste of time and money. According to Council Members Schlicht and Reardon, they are not against low-income housing, but they question how many more of "those" units we need to build. Reardon donated $400 just to make sure Heterosexuals have more rights than gays. You may think that is UnAmerican, but it's not really. We're all bigots. I hate all Shriners. I don't have a good reason for it. I suppose I could invent some. They wear Fezzes, they drink heavily, they have those mysterious rituals that involve nudity, they are Masons on Amphetamines, they build hospitals that treat children for free...There are a lot of things I suppose I could spin to defend my bigotry. I mean who treats children to free health care. That's totally unAmerican. Kids should work to pay for their own health care. I do. The Shriners are just indoctrinating kids into craving Socialism.
:-)
A fellow by the name of Orson Scott Card has taken up rewriting Shakespeare. That's right, Shakespeare needs to be rewritten. Now, Orson Scott Card should be well known as the Democrat who turned Republican one day before the 2006 midterms. Over, you guessed it, gay marriage. So what's he doing rewriting Shakespeare? Apparently Billy was being too PC about Hamlet's dad (the book is titled Hamlet's Father) The punchline? [spoiler alert in case you plan on reading the book] 'Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house."' From, http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2011summer/card.shtml
One of the biggest problems I have is when people say "There should be a law..." for anything they don't like or support. Rather than act like rational adults, they would rather run to "mommy" and have the government step in. Right now the most american thing to do is be xenophobic and fearful that someone is going to come in and take your job and stuff so we should give loads of cash to companies to keep the jobs here. Sure, the companies will take the cash and hire overseas workers, but apparently that is only because we didn't give them enough money. Also, Shriners are Masons on LSD (why else would they drive tiny cars).
There's a fairly strong consensus that the narrator of The Great Gatsby is gay and in love with Gatsby. That's also an interesting reading that the text will actually support.
Plus the bride's dress a gay man would buy would make those young women today seem like they're squandered their parents money at Target's bridal section. :) These are, of course, horrid stereotypes and we should stop. But your comment was funny and very unlike you, so I was inspired. Have fun, Rebecca.