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

To: xzins
This "standing" thing has become a hammer to beat up those who would participate in the culture wars.

They probably don't because I can't see how they can show damage.

But regardless, it doesn't make any sense to me to have a process where your state constitution is amended through a popular referendum only to have that amendment declared unconstitutional. If your constitution says something then isn't it by definition Constitutional?

9 posted on 08/13/2010 4:23:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
They probably don't because I can't see how they can show damage.

They certainly should have standing because the 'damage' is that the people of California were not allowed to amend their own state constitution, no matter what that change was.

26 posted on 08/13/2010 5:24:28 AM PDT by houeto (Get drinking water from your ditch - http://www.junglebucket.com/Others may not bJungle-Bucket-1.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

Isn’t the prejudicial nature of allowing more gay marriages while the proposition itself is appealed damage? (Legally)

I’m no lawyer, of course, but it seems that damaging another legal case should count as damages.


35 posted on 08/13/2010 5:36:53 AM PDT by MortMan (Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill: a four-putt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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: 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: Non-Sequitur

There most certainly is damage. There is the additional cost to support the contradictory arrangement ‘gay marriage’. Also there is there is a cultural cost just as if a state were forced to license polygamy or any other alternative union. Also there is the legal cost which sets precedence that if a state licenses one thing that they must also be compelled to grant licenses for anything that a person or person might want.

No one has ever been discriminated against. The state offered licensing for anyone who wanted to marry a person of the opposite sex. There was no discrimination and there never has been. No more than a place that specializes in selling pies is discriminating because it doesn’t serve the flavor of pie someone wishes. Just because someone chooses to live a gay lifestyle does not mean they were prevented from marrying they just didn’t like the terms.

So much of this debate is based on such a degree of intellectually dishonest crap.


122 posted on 08/13/2010 6:12:42 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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