Prop 8 news- Page 2

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 11:06pm

Civil unions aren't considered satisfactory by activists (or really, by anyone) because at this point no civil union confers upon those who enter into one the same rights and protections that marriage affords. And, it should be noted, that many states that have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage also ban any kind of union between same-sex partners, whether it's marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Is "marriage" anything more than a demand for recognition from religion?

Yes. It's a demand for marriage, in the sense of the word that means to join two separate things, like the marriage of chocolate and peanut butter, which means to simply join chocolate with peanut butter and has nothing to do with Jesus. Few, if any, fighting for same-sex marriage are doing it to receive some kind of blessing from religious establishments.

Thanks for your input as well, Gaveston. It still doesn't make perfect sense to me, but I'm trying to wrap my brain around it.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/8/12 at 12:04am

There are no SCOTUS decisions that comes even close to looking favorably upon same sex marriage. All of the marriage decisions are narrowly written.

I think it's possible they made a mistake in pushing this to the Federal level instead of keeping it at state level.

the appellate court ruled very narrowly that Prop 8 was unconstitutional only because it took away a right to marry in California that had been previously in place

In no way is it true at the Federal level. Stuff gets overturned all the time.

Updated On: 12/8/12 at 12:04 AM

[bethnor]

Posted: 12/8/12 at 2:07pm

Is "marriage" anything more than a demand for recognition from religion?

another way of realizing the answer to this is "yes," is the following. the human race is at least 100,000 years old. possibly 250,000. christianity is maybe 3000 years old at most.

the judeo-christian form of "traditional" marriage is therefore very young in the history of the human race (though it no doubt hijacked previous pagan conceptualizations as its own). and, the modern form of marriage where the woman is considered an equal part to the man is even younger... no more than 100 years at most (being generous here). i.e., for the vast majority of its history, the "traditional" judeo-christian marriage was based on a shockingly sexist arrangement, a way of tying the woman's property to the man. this is why there is such an exaggerated emphasis on virginity (it was to assure the man that all the offspring would be his own... i am quite certain the universe doesn't give one whit if one female mammal goes to her nuptials with her hymen unbroken) and why we still have ridiculous terms like "illegitimate child" (when the truth is, any child a man sires is LEGITIMATELY his responsibility). remember, even until the 50-60s, divorce carried a huge stigmata. mother teresa famously went to ireland to make divorce illegal for EVERYONE (there wasn't even the suggestion that divorce should be illegal just for catholics). that's not even twenty years ago!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/9/12 at 8:29pm

I don't mean to be picky, but Jesus (if he ever existed) hasn't been dead for quite 2,000 years yet, so I don't think the religion founded on him can be 1,000 years older.

Maybe bethnor was referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition. 3,000 years could be an estimate if one combines the two religions.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/9/12 at 8:36pm

Thanks for your input as well, Gaveston. It still doesn't make perfect sense to me, but I'm trying to wrap my brain around it.

Again, I want to give Pal Joey full credit for finding that very informative blog.

Phyllis, I don't understand it all either, but basically, the 9th circuit tried to narrow the focus of the Prop 8 challenge to the specific issue of whether a right could be taken away by voters once it had been granted by the Constitution.

But according to the blog, SCOTUS went back to the original claim by Prop 8 opponents that marriage is a constitutional right and announced they would rule on that instead.

Things could still change once they get to haggling for votes*, but basically the 9th Circuit tried to limit the issue to California alone, but SCOTUS decided to go broad instead.

Frankly, this doesn't make me feel optimistic. I hope my fears are unfounded.

-----

* For example, there's still the issue that the State of California refused to appeal the 9th circuit's ruling overturning Prop 8. Others appealed on the state's behalf and whether those others even had jurisdiction will have to be decided by SCOTUS.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/10/12 at 12:48am

SCOTUS grants reviews based on the petitions submitted to them - it's the petitioners who put forth the question to be considered. SCOTUS may also ask, as they have done here, for preparation of briefs and arguments on closely related issues that might have been involved in the lower court decisions. In this case it's the issue of standing of the petitioners. The California courts affirmed that the petitioners had standing for the previous hearings but in the past SCOTUS has expressed dislike of California's system.

Similarly, in the DOMA case, SCOTUS informed the involved parties to prepare for the point of whether or not SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to rule on DOMA since the Executive Branch has not bothered to defend DOMA in the past. (This could set up an interesting Executive v Congressional debate).