Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. won't appeal Prop 8 ruling (and judge says regular citizen have no standing)
UPI ^ | Aug. 12, 2010

Posted on 08/13/2010 4:15:28 AM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
A nullified democratic vote is not damage?

I'd call it severe damage.

51 posted on 08/13/2010 6:04:34 AM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Unfortunately you are right. When the people have no standing it has to come.


52 posted on 08/13/2010 6:07:39 AM PDT by usslsm51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
If the courts rule that a marriage doesn’t have to be between a man and woman, then why should it limit marriage between species, or more than 2 people?

I was always troubled by the definition of marriage that most states were passing that said that marriage only the marriage of one man and one woman would be valid or recognized by a state. The reason being that the definition still opens the door for polygamy, because technically speaking couldn't you argue that polygamy is only the relationship between one man and one woman. After all, the woman isn't married to the other wives, just the one husband. So polygamy is really a case in which one man has many separate marriages, but each marriage is only between one man and one woman. The definition never actually says that each individual may only contract one valid marriage at a time.

53 posted on 08/13/2010 6:08:08 AM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins

how about equal protection argument? It seems the governor is denying the voters their votes?

Capable of repetition yet evading review?


54 posted on 08/13/2010 6:09:47 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The ruling class doesn’t give a damn about the vote of the people. Not one damn.


55 posted on 08/13/2010 6:10:53 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
It's odd. Since I am not an attorney, never heard the term “no standing” until Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen hit the courts. It was with Obama’s eligibility that this expression “no standing” began appearing in the general media.

I suppose if the courts allow “standing” with this homosexual issue, it might weaken the case for “no standing” in the challenges to Obama’s natural born status.

Is is possible that one political and legal issue could be influencing another.

56 posted on 08/13/2010 6:13:11 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

“Conservatives sat on their fat butts for 40 years and allowed the left to take over nearly institution.” Try since around 1900 When that POS Roosevelt was elected and started this country down the “Progressive(Socialist/Statist) Path.


57 posted on 08/13/2010 6:21:48 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Impossible to do. Recall elections might be a way to go. Recall the judges, the governor, attorney general. The government is becoming so non-responsive to the people that it makes you wonder if things will eventually force people into civil disobedience. The Sons of Liberty had an answer for how to deal with this kind of problem...but that would cause chaos. Personally, I think it would be great American Spirit if they passed the amendment again anyway.

Its virtually impossible to do anything with the legislature. It's so gerrymandered as to make improvement virtually impossible...and the Dems control nearly 2/3s of both houses.

I guess you could put a lot of effort into making the redrawing of the legislative boundaries next year after the census is completed come out in your favor. However, I think California has idiotically handed drawing of their Congressional districts to an elite cabal of 15 people...not even the legislature has a say anymore.

I wonder if a massive tax protest would get their attention? Californians could ask their Republican representatives to vote against ANY budget until California defends Prop. 8 and prop. 187 since it takes 2/3 of the legislature to pass the budget. All state business would stop until they follow the will of the people. Another thing to do would be to put a bill that requires the state to exhaust all legislative appeals in defense of popularly passed initiatives. So they don't scuttle them like they are doing with prop.8 and prop 187.

58 posted on 08/13/2010 6:23:57 AM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
That the Attny Gen - Jerry Brown will not fight this gives Meg 5% increase in voters, not because of the “war” but because people are sick of government not listening.

NutMeg won't fight it either. Whitman is just Jerry Brown in the skirt that Jerry Brown won't wear in public.

59 posted on 08/13/2010 6:38:41 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: old republic
. All state business would stop until they follow the will of the people.

And if it doesn't - stop spending. The state needs the sales tax revenue so badly, a tax payer revolt would totally freak them out.

No spending until prop 8 becomes state law - period.

60 posted on 08/13/2010 6:41:53 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

Pick your march:

Aug. 28 with Glenn Beck

or

Sept. 12 the 9/12 Project

[Mr] T


61 posted on 08/13/2010 6:44:37 AM PDT by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Ultimately, I fear that the govt will try to force churches and clergy to perform same sex marriage ceremonies or lose their tax exempt status.


62 posted on 08/13/2010 6:47:04 AM PDT by a real Sheila (FUBO! We must clean house in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
If the courts rule that a marriage doesn’t have to be between a man and woman, then why should it limit marriage between species, or more than 2 people?

Polygamy would be easier to rule as being valid marriage, as it is legal many countries, and historically had been recognized even in the Bible (at least for kings).

63 posted on 08/13/2010 6:48:49 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

That’s exactly right. Gray Davis did it to 187. Hence, the constitutionality of 187 has never been fully litigated.


64 posted on 08/13/2010 7:04:16 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

This is an interesting legal point. The judge is asserting that homosexual marriage has no effect on heterosexuals or society as a whole, or at least not a negative effect.


65 posted on 08/13/2010 7:09:39 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I agree with you, hadn’t seen the ‘no standing’ tactic until Obama’s lawyers used it in blocking release of his BC.

This much is known, that the Left and its lawyers talk, message and conference amongst themselves. Hence it’s not a stretch to imagine they are using the same tactics for different issues.


66 posted on 08/13/2010 7:13:34 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

agreed and we still have so called conservatives saying well I know a homosexual and they are nice so I have no problem if they get married etc.

Also look at the talk radio , so called conservative TV show hosts.
Do we ever hear the likes of Hannity etc talk about the homosexual agenda?
No they’re too afraid to and being afraid is what the homosexuals want in order to pass their agenda.

We know this is not about marriage this is about a step in their agenda, next step is to teach it in schools, force private schools religious orgs etc.

We also have to stop playing their word game, they are not gay, gay has another meaning and the word should not be hijacked, they are homosexuals so we should all be saying homosexuals


67 posted on 08/13/2010 7:16:18 AM PDT by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xzins

In general, I think the whole “standing” thing has become “shut up, you peasants have no say in what we elites are doing.”


68 posted on 08/13/2010 7:17:03 AM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

“In general, I think the whole “standing” thing has become “shut up, you peasants have no say in what we elites are doing.””

Bingo. We have a winner!


69 posted on 08/13/2010 7:17:51 AM PDT by paulycy (Restore Constitutionality: Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

When prop 8 passed, I told my wife it’s great, but they’ll have it overturned in a year. Turned out it took them 2.

I think we reach the end of the rope about November.


70 posted on 08/13/2010 7:35:13 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gasshog

Dropping LA & SF would suffice. The rest of the state isn’t too bad...


71 posted on 08/13/2010 7:41:25 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Maybe - but she will work harder to get the business of the state in better shape. JB has no decernable change in i his ideas - which are part of the 40 year DemocRAT system of running government. She will change somethings - what I don’t know but she will be able to look at a P&l and see what is BS. That is a start.


72 posted on 08/13/2010 7:41:36 AM PDT by q_an_a (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Voters who passed the proposition have no standing because they aren’t affected?

Just wow

... And WTF


73 posted on 08/13/2010 7:45:30 AM PDT by hattend (Like a termite to wood, Obama only wants to destroy - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
(and judge says regular citizen peasants have no standing)

It was touch and go for a few generations there after the American Revolution, but Their Lordships have now got the peasants back in their places.

74 posted on 08/13/2010 7:57:21 AM PDT by an amused spectator (Watching the MSM with Obama is like watching Joslyn James with Tiger Woods)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch
I’ve never understood why the Constitutionality of initiatives wasn’t determined prior to the vote.

It was. By Jerry Brown, Ca. AG. Consider the the contempt shown to the people by a state AG actively moving to thwart the people and will not defend their legal interests. Jerry Brown is a communist bastard. One wonders if Meg Whitman "is a huge fan".

The state court later upheld Prop 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution. When push comes to shove, we see that we actually have a Ruling Class dictatorship, by and for the benefit of elitist, memebers-only Oberfuhrers.

75 posted on 08/13/2010 8:06:31 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

‘Schwarzenegger should be dragged out of office and not allowed to complete his term.’

He and Gov moonbeam should be hung by their necks until dead for failing to uphold the Constitution of the state of California.


76 posted on 08/13/2010 8:16:01 AM PDT by edge10 (Obama lied, babies died!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

How did we ever permit a single court and a single judge to outweigh the vote of the People?


77 posted on 08/13/2010 8:20:04 AM PDT by montag813 (http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

209 is the law, but you are correct about Prop 187. It was never appealed.


78 posted on 08/13/2010 8:21:43 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
They're creating another Valdemar Republic.

This took me a while...did you mean Weimar Republic?

79 posted on 08/13/2010 8:22:13 AM PDT by Moltke (panem et circenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
Maybe - but she will work harder to get the business of the state in better shape.

She is too politically soft and squishy to do anything. She lied to get the nomination and she cannot be trusted. I will not vote for her.

80 posted on 08/13/2010 8:42:24 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: bvw

The God that he does not seem to believe in will certainly disbar him.


81 posted on 08/13/2010 8:50:00 AM PDT by maeng ( l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: old republic
"I was always troubled by the definition of marriage that most states were passing that said that marriage only the marriage of one man and one woman would be valid or recognized by a state. The reason being that the definition still opens the door for polygamy, because technically speaking couldn't you argue that polygamy is only the relationship between one man and one woman. After all, the woman isn't married to the other wives, just the one husband. So polygamy is really a case in which one man has many separate marriages, but each marriage is only between one man and one woman. The definition never actually says that each individual may only contract one valid marriage at a time."

That is an excellent point. That definition has been used to defend heterosexual marriage by pointing out marriage as a cultural norm is the binding of one man to one woman even in cultures which support multiple simultaneous marriages. The entire group does not engage in a group marriage simultaneously, and if one of the wives dies or is divorced the other marriages are unaffected.

However, it begs the question. If civil marriage in the United States is not the legal binding of one man to one woman at one time, then what is the definition? The answer is, there is none. The judge found in today's society, restrictions on marriage were based only in religion and moral norms, not in legally defensible arguments. But he did not create a definition.

Since the case in California shot down not only Prop 8, but the very idea of restricting marriage via a definition, it has to have created a legal precedent to allow challenges.

Homosexual marriage is not recognized in the Federal tax code. All civil marriage is based on state laws. So there is no reason a state could not legalize polygamy, it would just mean if all spouses worked one wife could file jointly, and the remainder if they earned money would file as an unmarried individual.

So what is to prevent a polygamist from suing the state of California under an equal protection argument citing the judge's Prop 8 decision? Likewise, since this was a federal judge, deciding on federal constitutional grounds, what is to keep gays from any state from suing on similar grounds? What is to keep polygamist fundamentalists Mormon sects in Utah from suing Utah, or polygamist Muslims in Dearborn from suing Michigan?

I wonder if Ted Olson will take up the case for the fundamentalist LDS members who have been charged or convicted of bigamy.

82 posted on 08/13/2010 8:56:04 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So the very first time a priest is told to marry a homosexual couple he does not want to marry because he believes marriage is only one man and one woman, hasn’t he then been damaged by being forced to marry people he knows should not marry. Doesn’t that damage give him standing to sue for an appeal of Prop 8?

Why would this not be the case?


83 posted on 08/13/2010 9:00:16 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (California Bankruptcy in 4... 3... 2...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
Time to have a mass march on Sacramento with shotguns, just be sure to pick up the empty shells when we leave.
84 posted on 08/13/2010 9:04:27 AM PDT by troy McClure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
So the very first time a priest is told to marry a homosexual couple he does not want to marry because he believes marriage is only one man and one woman, hasn’t he then been damaged by being forced to marry people he knows should not marry.

Why would he be forced to? Homosexuals may be able to marry in civil ceremonies but the government can't force religions to violate their teachings.

85 posted on 08/13/2010 9:05:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Spreading AIDS to society at large is not “no effect on society at large”.


86 posted on 08/13/2010 9:09:09 AM PDT by rahbert (If there's no umlaut, is it really uber?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the judge to immediately lift the stay, allowing gay and lesbian marriages to go on during the legal process, and a spokesman for the governor indicated Thursday Schwarzenegger will not appeal the ruling, the Los Angeles Times reported.

I voted for Tom McClintock.

87 posted on 08/13/2010 9:18:59 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maeng

Men are expected to act to cure such depravity, as a part of our duty to G-d. We are not to wait helplessly as innocents are crushed by the immoral.


88 posted on 08/13/2010 9:31:42 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: xzins

There should be 49 other states that come on line and say they won’t honor California marriages.


89 posted on 08/13/2010 9:32:03 AM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer (Don't tread on us...or you'll pay the price in the next election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I am just saying people may get away with many sins in this life but they will surely answer for them in the next.


90 posted on 08/13/2010 9:35:33 AM PDT by maeng ( l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; All

“Revolution is coming, it must come.”

Let us pray it is in the form of the voting booth.


91 posted on 08/13/2010 9:36:44 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.


92 posted on 08/13/2010 9:40:14 AM PDT by CoastWatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Perhaps, because of the Godless nature of this state, God has already left California. Pray for the Salvation of those of us stuck in this nightmare.


93 posted on 08/13/2010 9:43:39 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: maeng

I reject all theological interpretations which hold men should be passive before other men doing great evil and wait instead for Divine retribution.

Do not injustice or evil to cure any evil, but do not stand by — look for what cures Providence has already provided that might best be applied in the situation.


94 posted on 08/13/2010 9:47:16 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Well...at least now another state knows the pain we feel in Massachusetts.

My father had a VERY fitting saying for situations like this,but I’d be banned if I repeat it here....


95 posted on 08/13/2010 9:52:47 AM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Walker warned the amendment's sponsors may not have standing

Thousands of lawsuits brought by leftists over the years and never once have I heard of this rule being applied to their causes.

And the pot continues to boil over...

96 posted on 08/13/2010 9:56:29 AM PDT by LibWhacker (America awake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I see the ‘standing’ thing as the normal leftist ratchet approach.

The only people with standing are those who are damaged by the law. The only ones damaged are the people who are told they can’t marry. Therefore, the only people who can sue are the gays. Heterosexuals aren’t prevented from marrying, so they have to right to sue.

This effectively biases the legal system toward allowing gay marriage, or really, allowing anybody to do anything.

I wonder if the standing argument could be pushed so far as to even allow murder to become legal (theoretically). The only people who could sue would be those damaged by the murderer. Those damaged would only be the dead victims, who would be in no position to sue. Could be a civil vs. criminal lwaw difference, though.


97 posted on 08/13/2010 9:56:54 AM PDT by EvilOverlord (Socialism makes workers into slaves and couch potatoes into kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Is he having an affair with Tony Villar (Villaregosa)?


98 posted on 08/13/2010 9:59:47 AM PDT by historyrepeatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Walker warned the amendment's sponsors may not have standing, or status, to make the appeal because they were not affected by the stay.

Perhaps they are affected by the lifting of the stay?

-PJ

99 posted on 08/13/2010 10:17:23 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EvilOverlord

This came up in the Birther trials- citizens had no standing. When pressed, the court allowed other candidates to have standing, so Alan Keyes filed a suit, but it turned out he had no standing either.

Seems like “The System” has become rigged. Courts overturn votes, ignore important issues, rely on foreign law, the legislature ignores the constitution and the courts go along. I’m sure we could all enumerate a long list of grievances.


100 posted on 08/13/2010 10:39:00 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson