Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's not consistent with what SCOTUSblog said - exactly the opposite, in fact. If they punt vis-a-vis lack of standing, then that lack of standing applies to the appeal as well, so the District Court's ruling is what is left standing. That ruling would only apply in this specific instance (to the specific parties in the case) and not count for precedent, which would have to wait for a more directly relevant case [ie, a suit by a member of government].

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/reaching-a-judgment/

It's been a while since I read the 9th Circuit case, but my recollection was that there was no standing challenge, that the parties to the appeal of Judge Walker's decision were proper parties or at least that subject matter jurisdiction issues were waived as not timely raised (Standing affects a court's subject matter jurisdiction, I've litigated this issue successfully at the federal level). If that's not the situation, if there was a standing issue at the 9th Circuit level, then SCOTUSblog is correct - standing issues would apply back to the underlying appeal.

The political winds have shifted in California, so I expect you'd see a repeal of Prop. 8 on the next set of ballot initiatives as soon as a SCOTUS decision comes down if it leaves Prop. 8 intact in any way, and that would likely pass and kill the whole thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

It can only end with government getting out of marriage altogether. Strike that word from all laws. If people want hospital visitation rights, there are PoAs for that. If people want reduced tax burden, they can register a household or if the government wants to promote birth, they can register as cohabitating parents of a child.

So what you're saying is you'd strike it from the laws, but the first act is to establish something that's just like it except in name? Makes no sense to me. If there is no societal need for recognition of marriage - why 'register a household at all'.

Onodera - what do you think should be done about spousal visas? would you do away with them altogether? What about pensions to widows?

[snoopy369]

I fail to see how one can make a distinction between a roomate and a spouse unless the union is an essential part of marriage. Sex is relevant, color is not.

People can't have sex with their roommates without being married? Quick, somebody tell the producers of every sitcom ever...

[Ben Kenobi]

The political winds have shifted in California, so I expect you'd see a repeal of Prop. 8 on the next set of ballot initiatives as soon as a SCOTUS decision comes down if it leaves Prop. 8 intact in any way, and that would likely pass and kill the whole thing.

So why not just do that?

[snoopy369]

It's been a while since I read the 9th Circuit case, but my recollection was that there was no standing challenge, that the parties to the appeal of Judge Walker's decision were proper parties or at least that subject matter jurisdiction issues were waived as not timely raised (Standing affects a court's subject matter jurisdiction, I've litigated this issue successfully at the federal level). If that's not the situation, if there was a standing issue at the 9th Circuit level, then SCOTUSblog is correct - standing issues would apply back to the underlying appeal.

The political winds have shifted in California, so I expect you'd see a repeal of Prop. 8 on the next set of ballot initiatives as soon as a SCOTUS decision comes down if it leaves Prop. 8 intact in any way, and that would likely pass and kill the whole thing.

I wonder if you'll see a ballot initiative repeal and/or affirmation of the right regardless of the outcome. Californians are probably (as a group) pretty embarrassed they passed Prop 8 in the first place...

[Ben Kenobi]

People can't have sex with their roommates without being married? Quick, somebody tell the producers of every sitcom ever...

If you're living with someone and not having sex with them are they a roommate or are they your spouse? If the only requirement is 'living together', then a roommate qualifies.

[snoopy369]

If you're living with someone and not having sex with them are they a roommate or are they your spouse? If the only requirement is 'living together', then a roommate qualifies.

A lot of men would argue that if you are living with someone and not having sex with them, they're probably your spouse...

[Ben Kenobi]

Californians are probably (as a group) pretty embarrassed they passed Prop 8 in the first place...

Why would the 48 have more say than the 52 who passed it? I'm sure the 48 are embarrassed, but they aren't as a group, representative of 'Californians'.

[snoopy369]

So why not just do that?

You do realize this appeal to the SC was brought by _opponents_ of gay marriage, right? Why not ask them?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Given that the 9th circus is the most often overturned? Yes, yes it is.

It's called the will of the people. I think Jefferson said something about that once.

And lots of people, including Jefferson, have noted that "the will of the people" can not be used to deny rights to the minority. The will of the people has an especially difficult time doing that in light of those pesky Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Think of the irony - you were born in the wrong century, but the belief systems you advocate would have locked your ass up to howl at the moon.

[Ben Kenobi]

A lot of men would argue that if you are living with someone and not having sex with them, they're probably your spouse...

Before the honeymoon? I doubt that.

[snoopy369]

Why would the 48 have more say than the 52 who passed it? I'm sure the 48 are embarrassed, but they aren't as a group 'Californians'.

The 48 who voted against it are embarrassed to be associated with the 52 who voted for it. Many of the 52 who voted for it are embarrassed to have voted for such a bigoted proposition. Many of the ~50% or whatever who didn't vote are embarrassed for not showing up to oppose it.

[Ben Kenobi]

You do realize this appeal to the SC was brought by _opponents_ of gay marriage, right? Why not ask them?

You do realize that California did vote to reject gay marriage, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Many of the 52 who voted for it are embarrassed to have voted for such a bigoted proposition.

Ah, I see. So because their opinions differ from your own, that lets you label them as bigoted? I see.

Personally I'm not shocked to hear you claim that anyone who believes gay marriage to be wrong is 'embarrassed by their opinion'. I'm not embarrassed by it at all. Everyone who's a faithful Catholic should hold this opinion.

Perhaps I should say that the majority of Californians were embarrassed to live in a state where 48 percent of them embrace sodomy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why would the 48 have more say than the 52 who passed it? I'm sure the 48 are embarrassed, but they aren't as a group, representative of 'Californians'.

Actually, it was a combination of lies funded by the ****ing Mormons in Utah that flipped that result. Things like the "Mommy, I want to marry another princess" ad. Got all the 2-digit IQ vote out, just like Nixon's "Russian" actors did back in the day.

Current polling suggests a 60+ to low 30s split in California, so if SCOTUS doesn't fix the abomination of Prop. 8, you can bet the voters will.

When you get married, you can change your name to Ben Dover.