Absolute Anime

For those of you who may have not heard, the Supreme Court of the State of California (SCOCA) will hear the 3 [main] cases regarding Prop 8: (1) Strauss v. Horton, [S168047], (2) Tyler v. California [S168066], (3) City and County of San Fransisco v. Horton [S168078]. I've created this thread to "water down," and if need be, answer any questions as to what's going on, because this is going to be a complex case (and perhaps major).
(Note: Other cases have been filed regarding Prop 8, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll leave those out).

SCOCA denied the request to "stay Prop 8." This means that Prop 8 is law, and will be enforced as such, until the Supreme Court says otherwise. In these cases, there are a host full of legal issues, but the core issue (for everyone) is whether or not this law is constitutional. (Prop 8 states that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; Also called the 'California Marriage Protection Act').

Now, some people have asked if this law affects homosexual couples who are already married. According to Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California (he represents the State in all cases involving it) believes that the law is not a "retroactive measure" which means that homosexual couples married before the passing of Prop 8 "would be upheld by the Court."

I'll be keeping everyone updated (which probably won't be until December).

How does proposition 8 sit with your beliefs?

i believe that if two people are in love and want to get married, so be it

what i dont get is..

is the constitution based off of religion?
if so, isn't there something about trying to force a religions beliefs on people?

because i know that in the bible it says that marraige should be between a man and woman and that god frowns on homosexuality

Tyche wrote:So, prop 8 is in effect again? At least the people already married can stay that way.

Are there a lot of protests going around? I haven't been hearing a ton of news about it.

Locke: It's unconstitutional, no argument from me about it. I think this mess could had been avoided have the Court not struck down Prop 22 which only recognized marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual couples under State law already had all the rights and legal benefits of a married couple.

Tyche: What do you mean "again?" From what I've heard, there are big protests going on up in the bay area, and some even down in San Diego. Apparently, at one of the protests, an old woman was beaten up just for wearing a cross. Also, there's some flack about a lesbian teacher taking her first grad class on a "field-trip" to her wedding.

Jamie: The Constitution isn't based off of a religion. It's based off of the idea of a limited government, that men have rights. You have the first amendment as a hindrance on the Federal government so that the government wouldn't establish it's own church (like England and the Church of England). Many argue that marriage is sacred under religion, but the lawyers representing homosexual couples argue that marriage is a legal institution, and that these types of laws violate the State Constitution and the Equal Protections Clause of the Constitution.

Athos wrote:Tyche: What do you mean "again?" From what I've heard, there are big protests going on up in the bay area, and some even down in San Diego. Apparently, at one of the protests, an old woman was beaten up just for wearing a cross. Also, there's some flack about a lesbian teacher taking her first grad class on a "field-trip" to her wedding.

"Again" meaning they couldn't legally marry before, and now can't. I didn't really mean the* prop itself, just the law. I write what I think, and what I think is hardly ever* accurate.

*edit: it doesn't help that I'm sleep deprived.

The way I see it is...if you look at any country other than the USA marriage is a religion thing and it should stay that way. Politics should stay out of it, each religion has it's own ceremonies and rights and such so unless the US government is going to accommodate them all with their own individual laws they should just butt out of it...I mean who gave the government the power to butt in on religious stuff anyway? I was under the impression that your constitution stated something like separating politics and religion.

That's my opinion anyway.....Prop 8 or whatever it is has nothing to do with me and doesn't effect me.....hmm perhaps my opinion doesn't matter then...oh well

Tyche wrote:

Athos wrote:Tyche: What do you mean "again?" From what I've heard, there are big protests going on up in the bay area, and some even down in San Diego. Apparently, at one of the protests, an old woman was beaten up just for wearing a cross. Also, there's some flack about a lesbian teacher taking her first grad class on a "field-trip" to her wedding.

"Again" meaning they couldn't legally marry before, and now can't. I didn't really mean the* prop itself, just the law. I write what I think, and what I think is hardly ever* accurate.

*edit: it doesn't help that I'm sleep deprived.

Well, before the Court made a decision, homosexual couples could enter into a civil union in which they had all the same rights as benefits as heterosexual couples under California law. (And I'd start getting some sleep )

And Aoi, I think you're brought up an interesting point. According to French law, ". . .French law only recognizes civil marriage. Religious ceremonies are optional,[but] have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.)" (Emphasis added). I have heard similar arguments as such here in California among political scholars. I honestly don't see why the two couldn't be held on the same day...Under German law, ". . . gay couples in Germany have most of the rights that heterosexual spouses have in areas like inheritance and health insurance. They do not receive the marriage tax benefit. Foreign partners of German gays and lesbians are allowed to join them in Germany." In Hungary, "Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995; however they are not eligible for legal marriage." From what I've seen, you're right Aoi. Most countries have marriage under the understanding from religion, but homosexual couples can enter into civil unions.

I'm not so sure about that. I think benefits wouldn't be stricken down, since that isn't the issue here.

Aoi Sakuraba wrote:The way I see it is...if you look at any country other than the USA marriage is a religion thing and it should stay that way. Politics should stay out of it, each religion has it's own ceremonies and rights and such so unless the US government is going to accommodate them all with their own individual laws they should just butt out of it...I mean who gave the government the power to butt in on religious stuff anyway? I was under the impression that your constitution stated something like separating politics and religion.

That's my opinion anyway.....Prop 8 or whatever it is has nothing to do with me and doesn't effect me.....hmm perhaps my opinion doesn't matter then...oh well

Ooh, some big errors here. Guess what? Marriage has not always been a religious thing. Originally, they were common law. Religion annexed the idea into itself. Homosexuals should have the right to marriage as recognised by the state. That's the whole point. They're not saying they should be allowed to marry IN Christian churches, if those churches don't want to.
I'll simplify it for you:
Homosexuals shouldn't be denied the right to marry, and Christians shouldn't be denied the right to practice their religion [other than all that inhumane, immoral stuff. In fact, had politics not intervened, you, a female, would basically be an object that your father could sell under contract of marriage to some rich dude for land. Marriage was never based on love. It was all about selling women. It changed. And will continue to change]


^ ineloquent quasi-elucidation for now. Tired. zZzZzzZz

No, because Prince says so. ... Err, maybe.

Homosexuals shouldn't be denied the right to marry, and Christians shouldn't be denied the right to practice their religion [other than all that inhumane, immoral stuff. In fact, had politics not intervened, you, a female, would basically be an object that your father could sell under contract of marriage to some rich dude for land. Marriage was never based on love. It was all about selling women. It changed. And will continue to change]


^ ineloquent quasi-elucidation for now. Tired. zZzZzzZz

Stated eloquently enough.

I'll try to elaborate: wife-selling was actually a fairly common practice in the 18th century (no, it wasn't legal). It was used as a more cordial form of divorce. They sold them in market places, usually with halters tied around their necks/bodies, similar to how slave/cattle trades were conducted.

Succinctly put, calling marriage strictly religious is pretty erroneous as history dictates. Beneath its religious and political ramifications, marriage has always served a constant fundamental function--which is the propagation of the human species and genealogies--that isn't primarily a "religion thing." Only during ~the 18th-19th century did the axiological purpose of the institution begin shifting to the what it currently is.

Our current view of marriage, as described by Chief Justice Earl Warren: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness by free men."
^ Essentially the reason why prop. 8 is being argued.

Now, some people have asked if this law affects homosexual couples who are already married. According to Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California (he represents the State in all cases involving it) believes that the law is not a "retroactive measure" which means that homosexual couples married before the passing of Prop 8 "would be upheld by the Court."

Aren't all laws in the U.S. required to be non-retroactive? Because I can't think of an example where an ex post facto law wouldn't precipitate some kind of negative effect that would be constitutional.

Well, to my knowledge, ex post facto laws are applied to the area of criminal law, not civil law. The question was raised though because of the way that Prop 8 was written. Also, this isn't a federal issue, it's a state issue.

It makes sense, since a marriage is, in essence, a contract. Rescinding them would cause a lot of problems.

The Court striking down Prop 22 caused a lot of problems.

Yep. You can see almost a chain of progression between the people who supported the anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) and those who challenged the constitutionality of prop 22. The fundamentalists and egalitarians alike used the same exact rhetoric as they do today when it comes to marital freedom.

Jamie Madrox wrote:because i know that in the bible it says that marraige should be between a man and woman and that god frowns on homosexuality

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that.