GWSuperfan: ...I also don't think that one or two elected officials should have the ability to abdicate defense of a law on behalf of all citizens without a mechanism in place for citizens to defend a law that they believe in.

They presented their case (very poorly) the first time around in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, wouldn't you say? Why is the state forced to defend the appeal of an unconstitutional proposition?

If anyone is interested in reading the horrible defense put up by the proponents of Prop 8, there are good links to the summary of that trial here. Bottom of the page.

My favorite part of the trial:

Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?

"Your honor, my answer is: I don't know," Mr. Cooper said. "I don't know."

Charles Cooper was the lawyer defending Prop 8.

Soup4Bonnie: Why is the state forced to defend the appeal of an unconstitutional proposition?

I said this poorly. The state isn't being made to defend the appeal, but because they abdicate, I don't see why some of the people who sponsored the prop in the first place have any standing.

This article sums up pretty well what was ruled on today.

One point of view:

The measure's proponents had argued that California's initiative process, which allows voters to enact legislation, gives proponents of ballot measures wide latitude to participate in legal proceedings when the validity of a proposition is challenged.

What I believe and failed to state clearly:

Lawyers for gay couples who sued to overturn Proposition 8 and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have argued that the measure's backers aren't authorized to represent the state's interest in the appeal.

Why I'm not a judge:

Letting Proposition 8 proponents defend the law "serves to enhance both the fairness of the judicial process and the appearance of fairness of that process," the state's high court said today in a unanimous ruling.

I haven't read the ruling yet. Somebody have a link I can look at later?

FTA: Proposition 8 sponsors were pleased with the chance to go forward with their appeal, calling the Supreme Court decision a "huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists."

What in the blue fark is this shiat?

Too much above-ground nuke testing in Utah in the 1950's, or not enough?

If you prioritize a mythology or the perceived demands of mythological being over the right of your fellow human beings to enjoy the same rights and peace and happiness that you enjoy, you are an evil, despicable, immoral person,

Futher, even if there IS a god, if you put the demands or desires of an immortal, supernatural being over those of your fellow mortal human beings, you are the worst kind of traitor, unfit to live among us.

God, if real, has all eternity and all the universe. I simply cannot care about what he wants, even if I believed any of it. We each get a few decades and a little section of earth, at best.

sprawl15: FTA: Proposition 8 sponsors were pleased with the chance to go forward with their appeal, calling the Supreme Court decision a "huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists."

What in the blue fark is this shiat?

They drink Mountain Dew at the ceremony and go base jumping for the reception.

/not a euphamism

Exception Collection: GWSuperfan: As much as I think that prop 8 is a horrible thing, and should be declared unconstitutional at the federal level, I also don't think that one or two elected officials should have the ability to abdicate defense of a law on behalf of all citizens without a mechanism in place for citizens to defend a law that they believe in. So, as far as this particular ruling is concerned:

[imokaywiththis.jpg]

So very much this. Bad law, good ruling.

Yup, for all my distaste for Prop 8, the ruling is correct. Hopefully, though, Prop 8 will be overturned at SCOTUS.

Weaver95: so is this what the GOP means when they rant about judicial activism?

You used to anger me so much back in the day. Now I almost always agree with you.

Subby added an extra "m."

Despite the fact that Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional and a shiatty, horrible thing... this is the right decision. Let prop 8 get skewered on its merits.

I read that right the first time: Morons.

brukmann: I read that right the first time: Morons.

As I said.

Car_Ramrod: sprawl15: FTA: Proposition 8 sponsors were pleased with the chance to go forward with their appeal, calling the Supreme Court decision a "huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists."

What in the blue fark is this shiat?

They drink Mountain Dew at the ceremony and go base jumping for the reception.

/not a euphamism



You may now Joust the bride!

Bearwhale: brukmann: I read that right the first time: Morons.

As I said.

whales repeating

StoneColdAtheist: Exception Collection: GWSuperfan: As much as I think that prop 8 is a horrible thing, and should be declared unconstitutional at the federal level, I also don't think that one or two elected officials should have the ability to abdicate defense of a law on behalf of all citizens without a mechanism in place for citizens to defend a law that they believe in. So, as far as this particular ruling is concerned:

[imokaywiththis.jpg]

So very much this. Bad law, good ruling.

Yup, for all my distaste for Prop 8, the ruling is correct. Hopefully, though, Prop 8 will be overturned at SCOTUS.

This SCOTUS has made plenty of terrible rulings. I expect if this makes it there, they'll somehow rule in way to ban gay marriage forever and force gays into concentration camps, which will eventually become prime real estate. Because where there are gays, there is a flourishing housing and rental market.

StoneColdAtheist: Yup, for all my distaste for Prop 8, the ruling is correct. Hopefully, though, Prop 8 will be overturned at SCOTUS.

First, I'm proud of so many Anti-8ers for understanding that the ruling is about law and that it is the right ruling.

But I disagree about overturning. If *California*, of all states, still can't manage to legalize gay marriage through a simple vote, just imagine what the populace of the other states are like. If Scotus were stupid enough to intervene in this matter, it would be a matter of months until an Constitutional Amendment passes. Then Gay Marriage would become the new Abortion: a litmus test people must pass to be elected, and Pro-Marriage side would be on the losing side of those elections.

Time is on our side. Give time a chance to fix this through the political processes. We don't need an autocratic court to wisely rule the land for us; we need the young to get off their asses and vote. Or we can wait until more old people die; either way works.

brukmann: Bearwhale: brukmann: I read that right the first time: Morons.

As I said.

whales repeating

"Doesn't he mean bears-"

OHOOOOOOOOOO!

/bow

taxandspend: This SCOTUS has made plenty of terrible rulings. I expect if this makes it there, they'll somehow rule in way to ban gay marriage forever and force gays into concentration camps, which will eventually become prime real estate. Because where there are gays, there is a flourishing housing and rental market.

Are you suggesting that the Benevolent and Wise Supreme Court is only a good thing when they make laws we agree with? Who else can we turn to for the government we really want?

Quasar: Also, beyond single and asexual, they cannot be Christian or Muslim or any other religion that has anything to say about homosexuality, because of bias.

Dickwads.

They also should not possess genitalia of any kind.