How do you think the court will rule in the gay marriages

[terrya]

performed in San Francisco in the past few days?

I really don't know.

Terry

[La_Serpiente]

1. Honestly

I think they will rule in favor of the plaintiffs :-(

[LostInTheMaise]

2. How did they rule when Judge Roy Moore broke the law?

My guess is the same result here.

[bowens43]

3. They're not even close to the same thing.

Moore violated the Constitution of the United States and the civil rights of the people of Alabama to push his religous agenda. In San Fransisco, an unconstitutional law is bring ignored to protect the civil rights of the citizens of California. My guess, and my hope, is that the unconstitutional ban on gay marriages will be thrown out.

[LostInTheMaise]

4. They are the same in that laws are being broken.

As far as I know the law has not been proven to be unconstitutional yet. Do you have information that show the law has been deemed unconstitutional?

[Lexingtonian]

5. Rule that Newsom broke the law, certainly.

But I imagine Schwarzenegger will let himself be pressured into pardoning Newsom and letting all the merry newlyweds go into legal limbo for the next few months or years.

The big battles of the legalization war are being fought out here, in Massachusetts, this half of the year and when we win (I feel pretty certain it is not 'if') it will still take a while to get the initiative to the Left Coast again. Rhode Island is said to be preparing to legalize in the summer or fall (they're small and don't have the AG or AG funds to fight the all the court battles Massachusetts can afford to) waiting for the carnage around here to pass and the Christian Right to fall back pummelled, with a bloody nose, and no appetite for more.

Then there will likely be a test case set up to make a run on the federal DOMA in, say, fall. (Not that I could predict where, but it would be in a favorable federal district- probably New York City or the Ninth District, which includes California.) When/if the federal DOMA falls all the state DOMAs will be in various states of political pointlessness, constitutional violation/challenge, or sheer embarrassment to its champions. If the USSC decides to take out the federal DOMA, chances are it will strike down a pile of the state ones.

[WyLoochka]

6. Court will likely grant

the injunction today. Licensing will be halted temporarily as the case works its way through the courts. CA Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit will declare the CA law, which bows to the tyranny of the majority, unconstitutional - as it clearly is.

Fundies will take the 9th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. This is where ABB matters the MOST. Several old critters currently on the Supreme Court can't hold on much longer. There will likley be several resignations, due to age and infirmity, at the end of the Court's term this spring or next spring. A Court with a couple of new members will ultimately decide this case.

My number one reason why Bush* simply must be uprooted from his illegal squat in our White House and scorned all the way back to his spread in Texas is that he must not ever be given the opportunity to appoint more Scaliatites to the Supreme Court.

If that is allowed to happen - we are all $#&ked, in every way, for at least 40 years. It won't matter who is Prez or what the majorities are in Congress. A radical, activist, tyrannical, right wing Scaliatite court will overturn every bit of progressive legislation and every progressive court ruling they can possibly get their hands on - all the way back to the founding!

I will work my butt off for Kerry - if he is nominated - for this reason, if for no other. I am hoping he repays my hard work on his behalf by making John Edwards his first appointment to the Supreme Court. HA - take that you pugs!!!! They would NOT be able to uphold a filibuster against John Edwards due to an uproar against them.

And the pug plans to dismantle the New Deal while creating a fundamentalist Xtian wed to a fundamentalist Ayn Randian sicko society will have been permanently confounded!!!!!!

[YNGW]

7. Will of the People

>CA Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit will declare the CA law, which bows to the tyranny of the majority, unconstitutional - as it clearly is.

When the will of the majority of the people in the USA is considered "tyranny", we might as well fold up the tent and go home.

What's the point in having voters vote up or down referendums if they're going to be ignored anyway? "The voters don't want that new bond, but we have to have it anyway, so to hell with them."

[kiahzero]

8. Read "Democracy in America" by Tocqueville

Educate yourself.

The "tyranny of the majority" refers to the idea that in a democratic system, the majority can trample on the rights of disfavored minorities.

Most progressives and liberals understand that the will of the people is not sancrosanct... if it were, there would still be segregation in the South.

[WyLoochka]

9. Read a little Madison, Jefferson & Paine

will 'ya?

They worked hard to construct a government that would protect the minority from - in their OWN words - the "tyranny of the majority."

You are 180 degrees wrong - the "will of the majority" in oppressing the rights of the minority has been considered potentially tyrannous for 230 frigging years - it's NOT NEW.

The people of CA cannot, by referendum, overturn the Constitution. This is an equal rights matter and the "majority" will just have to lump it!!!

[YNGW]

10. Reply

These people who keep telling me to read things I've read over and over and have a full understanding of them are worthless.

Like I've said before, it'd be better just to burn the Constitution and let people take matters into their own hands for a while. Once matters are more managable, then draft a new Constitution or better define the old one.

[kiahzero]

11. That's ludicrious

Perhaps you should re-read, because "tyranny of the majority" is hardly the new, horrible, order-destroying phrase you made it out to be.

And how do you think that a new Constitution would be better? Given the way things are now, there'd probably be these 'wonderful' additions:
* Restrictions against flag burning
* Restrictions against gay marriage
* Protections for proselytizing in schools and the government
* Restricted free speech rights
* Restricted freedom of religion rights
* Restricted protections against search and seizure
* Protections for the use of the death penalty, specifically
* Restricted rights of alleged criminals

to name only a few.

The only positive amendment I've heard of, that isn't already there, is the ERA. So what, exactly, would be the benefit of scrapping our perfectly functional Constitution for one that could very well be worse?

There's a rule in engineering: If it's not broken, don't fix it. I'm pretty sure the same applies in Constitutional Engineering.

[YNGW]

14. Reply

>If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Given what you said, it's broken.

A revolution is coming, the USA can't last forever, and since you are astute at reading history, then you have an idea of what will happen. I say bring it on.

[WyLoochka]

13. You quite obviously don't

have a full understanding of what you have read.

>When the will of the majority of the people in the USA is considered "tyranny", we might as well fold up the tent and go home.<

> it'd be better just to burn the Constitution and let people take matters into their own hands for a while. Once matters are more managable...<

Oh right, no governing law, chaos, confusion, contradiction and a few lynch mobs will make "matters more managable (sic)."

Go do your homework.

[YNGW]

16. Reply

>You quite obviously don't have a full understanding of what you have read.

Yes, I do. And because it disagrees with you gives me even more assurances that I have a very full and correct understanding.

[WyLoochka]

18. You have yourself revealed

that you don't understand the concept of "tyranny of the majority." As such, you can't possibly have a "very full and correct understanding."

[YNGW]

19. Whatever.

nc

[LeahMira]

12. We don't follow the will of the majority... we follow the rule of law

When the will of the majority of the people in the USA is considered "tyranny", we might as well fold up the tent and go home.

We live under laws that are set out in our Constitution. If the majority of the people in the US object to something in the Constitution, they can amend the Constitution as they already have a few times. But until the Constitution is amended, the voters cannot simply vote to ignore its provisions.

What's the point in having voters vote up or down referendums if they're going to be ignored anyway? "The voters don't want that new bond, but we have to have it anyway, so to hell with them."

There's a world of difference between a bond bill and the civil rights of our citizens. But even if you can't see that, realize that referendums have been judged unconstitutional and even though the majority of citizens of a state approved the referendum, a higher authority prevails over the will of the state's citizens.

[YNGW]

17. Reply

We have people who look at Constitution laws that are plain and simple to understand, but deny that they're there, yet will make laws magically appear in the Constitution that we're never meant to be there.

[LeahMira]

15. The pro-gay marriage will win...

... in the long run, although there will be some obstacles to overcome.

Plainly, all citizens have the same rights. We can't deny equal rights because of differences in race or religion and we can't deny equal rights because of gender.

I think the marriages will be legally recognized at the District Court level. If people had any sense, they'd forget a court challenge, save their money, and mind their own business.

[foreigncorrespondent]

20. The thing is, Terry...

(take note, I haven't read any of the other replies yet)

...if any court denies the marriages as valid, then this could in fact go all the way to the highest court in CA (what ever that is.)

In CA, the fight for gay marriages have the CA constitution on their side (much like Mass.) The repukes and fundies know that if DoMA (even the federal DoMA) is challenged in court, that it won't have a leg to stand on. That is why the bastards introduced the FMA.

I don't really know how the court will rule today, but believe me, if they don't rule in favor of gay marriages, then watch the production line of gay couples taking this through the court system.

I hope that makes sense? I am having trouble sleeping tonight, and it is like 3am for me, and I am really groggy. LOL

[terrya]

21. How will this fare against Propostion 22(I THINK that's the right one)

That was passed by California voters a few years ago...declaring that marriage in California is between a man and a woman?

Would this Propostion be declared unconstitutional?

Terry

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. It IS unconstitutional, Terry.

All DoMAs (which is all prop 22 is) are against the United States constitution the way it is currently written.

The ONLY way they can back up their DoMAs is to change the words of their constitution, hence the introdution of the FMA in Congress and the Senate.

Just read Californias constitution declaration of rights and you will see why prop 22 is unconstitutional.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate Click the second link from the top and read.