Anyone following the Prop 8 Trial??

[SayWhat]

I was just curious if anyone is following the Prop 8 Trial in California.

Basically it's the first federally-accepted challenge to the propositions banning homosexual marriage in California.

If the federal courts determine that the California prop is unconstitutional, wouldn't it have to be legalized nation-wide?

 

[tampa24]

Thanks Ariz!

I had considered starting a thread on this topic but you actually did it. The news reports about how this trial is being presented has been sketchy and vague at best from the little I have been able to read about it in the mainstream media. My understanding is that this will inevitably go to the Supreme Court. As I've said before I think that is a risky proposition with such a conservative S.C. If the S.C. ultimately upholds Prop 8 or comes down with something more definitively anti gay marriage then it would most likely take us decades to get it overturned. I'd like to be able to live to see gay marriage legalized in my lifetime.

I do understand though why they are fighting Prop 8 in court. And of course I support them on that. I'm not so worried about the consequences of Prop 8 being upheld in state court as much as I am a ruling against us in the Supreme Court.

 

[gwr19569424]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the media was going to be banned from the trial.

Gary

 

[SayWhat]

If I understood correctly, it was decided to make it public via Youtube, but at a week's delay or something to that effect. I could be wrong, though. I've seen various forms of that story and they're not too consistent.

 

[joninliverton]

Thanks Ariz!

I had considered starting a thread on this topic but you actually did it. The news reports about how this trial is being presented has been sketchy and vague at best from the little I have been able to read about it in the mainstream media. My understanding is that this will inevitably go to the Supreme Court. As I've said before I think that is a risky proposition with such a conservative S.C. If the S.C. ultimately upholds Prop 8 or comes down with something more definitively anti gay marriage then it would most likely take us decades to get it overturned. I'd like to be able to live to see gay marriage legalized in my lifetime.

I do understand though why they are fighting Prop 8 in court. And of course I support them on that. I'm not so worried about the consequences of Prop 8 being upheld in state court as much as I am a ruling against us in the Supreme Court.

Keep me posted on this guys. As you know we Brits legalised gay marriage a few years ago but I think having such high profile gay celebs such as Elton John and David Furnish helped matters. Both of them have given unprecedented time and money towards gay charities and both were very close to the late Princess Diana.

Do I detect that members of the US Supreme court are god fearing church goers then ?

 

[tampa24]

Do I detect that members of the US Supreme court are god fearing church goers then ?

I can't attest to their churchgoing habits. But as far as being very conservative and smug that God almighty is on their side in the fight against gay rights...then the answer is probably yes. The S.C. is still outnumbered by conservatives. And some of them in particular are quite full of themselves.

You would think some of them have God's private cell phone number and Twitter address. Though that describes many here on the far right.

 

[Denny Bear]

Do I detect that members of the US Supreme court are god fearing church goers then ?

If this helps, remember these are for the most part the same people that put George Bush in the White House instead of Al Gore!

 

[PeconicNY]

"If the federal courts determine that the California prop is unconstitutional, wouldn't it have to be legalized nation-wide?" Given this premise in the US, it's not an "if then clause" and the answer, regrettably would be no. This is the problem with a Federal gov. that allows a state by state ruling on this proposition. Further, it's my contention that I don't care what they call marriage, as long as we are given equal rights under the law, i.e., those same rights that married couples are issued on a federal level. As an executor of an estate that two friends of mine shared for 40 years, the surviving partner is being treated as if they were strangers; hence, being taxed accordingly as well! So we can talk all day about "Gay Marriage," but it doesn't mean anything to me unless it includes equal rights under the law. I rarely see this particular point I raised. I believe many people should really be aware what it means to have those rights given to heterosexual couples, and it has nothing to do with a civil union. Those states that have "legal Gay Marriage" still fall short of what they really should be receiving on a federal level.

 

[joninliverton]

"If the federal courts determine that the California prop is unconstitutional, wouldn't it have to be legalized nation-wide?" Given this premise in the US, it's not an "if then clause" and the answer, regrettably would be no. This is the problem with a Federal gov. that allows a state by state ruling on this proposition. Further, it's my contention that I don't care what they call marriage, as long as we are given equal rights under the law, i.e., those same rights that married couples are issued on a federal level. As an executor of an estate that two friends of mine shared for 40 years, the surviving partner is being treated as if they were strangers; hence, being taxed accordingly as well! So we can talk all day about "Gay Marriage," but it doesn't mean anything to me unless it includes equal rights under the law. I rarely see this particular point I raised. I believe many people should really be aware what it means to have those rights given to heterosexual couples, and it has nothing to do with a civil union. Those states that have "legal Gay Marriage" still fall short of what they really should be receiving on a federal level.

Good point Pec however, the civil partnership in the UK is what is required by insurance companies, tax office etc if you want your relationship to be on a par as a heterosexual couple. There are quite a few tax incentives to be gained by being in a civil partnership.

 

[SayWhat]

"If the federal courts determine that the California prop is unconstitutional, wouldn't it have to be legalized nation-wide?" Given this premise in the US, it's not an "if then clause" and the answer, regrettably would be no.

I'm not arguing with you, just seeking clarification:

States don't have the right to implement laws that revoke our constitutional rights, correct?

So then if the federal court system determined that the ban on gay marriage/equal rights in California was unconstitutional, how would it not be considered equally unconstitutional amongst the rest of the states?

It seems to me like that would be no different than saying "Pursuant to Prop 123 in New York, we're banning equal rights to trial by jury to the following people."

 

[tampa24]

Hi Peconic,

You are quite right to raise the point that to have marriage in name only doesn't mean much if you don't get all of the same rights in the legal system as hetero couples. Married gay couples should have all the legal rights that have been a thorn in our side for decades. Tax breaks, hospital visitation, health care decision making, pension benefits for surviving spouses, access to spouses health insurance through work, etc. Just to name a quick few.

 

[joninliverton]

Hi Peconic,

You are quite right to raise the point that to have marriage in name only doesn't mean much if you don't get all of the same rights in the legal system as hetero couples. Married gay couples should have all the legal rights that have been a thorn in our side for decades. Tax breaks, hospital visitation, health care decision making, pension benefits for surviving spouses, access to spouses health insurance through work, etc. Just to name a quick few.

That's what the civil partnership gives you over here. I personally cannot see what the big issue is over in America; a country and world leader so advanced in many ways.

 

[Jayman01]

That's what the civil partnership gives you over here. I personally cannot see what the big issue is over in America; a country and world leader so advanced in many ways.

I understand. I just think that the term civil partnerships indicates that in it is not the same as marriage in some way. Either you are married or you are not. When you talk about civil partnerships you may as well talk about hand-fasting. It is just a way for the heterosexual world to differentiate themselves as better than. Granted they are offering the same rights as married couples at this time. So, if they are why differentiate. It just makes law makers do more work when writing and amending legislation to include the civil partnerships. Just call it marriage and be done with it. LOL Forget the stupid heterosexual's feelings on the matter. I say on this issue it is more than OK to run over them with a freight train and not look back. When you differentiate you segregate. So, why do it. The reason is that sometime in the future married couples may still be able to receive rights not afforded to civil partnerships. Again, it is away of saying you are less than us... Not equal to us in all ways. I believe in this argument it should be all or nothing at all. No, compromise on the principle.

 

[tampa24]

I agree that that should be the goal Jayman. We may not get there though without playing the game of civil partnerships in many states first.

 

[yabba]

Interesting facts about the prop 8 trial.

Most gay lobbing and legal organizations opposed bringing the case as they think it's a loser.

The trial judge wanted to broadcast the trial to 5 courtrooms around the countries and was trying to arrange a delayed broadcast on You-Tube but had not done so when

The Supreme Court acted in away they have never do so before nixed the broadcast on questionable grounds.

It is still a public trial but no pictures.

IMHO if the court finds for the plaintiffs and is upheld on appeals it would eventually apply nationally.

Also IMHO this ain't gonna happen and would be a bad idea if it did, another Roe v Wade.

 

[SayWhat]

I don't know what to think yet... The defense doesn't seem to be returning many valid facts and the judge doesn't seem to be accepting the standard off-logic arguments.

 

[Jayman01]

I agree that that should be the goal Jayman. We may not get there though without playing the game of civil partnerships in many states first.

Thanks, Tampa. I hear you. Hey, I don't care what the law says anyway. I choose to live my life above man's laws. I stick to the ten commandments. Those commandments are the only laws I really recognize. The commandments cover all of the stupid laws that man has mucked up in an effort to be way to specific and to prejudice the law toward their own personal goals and objectives.

If to guys or two women ask me to marry them, I do it. I tell them that the federal, and state laws have know bearing on their relationship other than for legal and taxation purposes. I tell them that their commitment is sworn before God and officiated by a priest chosen by God to formalize the the marriage with their vows. I remind them that there is a differentiation between church and state and that the government has no authority over the God's will or the doctrine of the church.

As long as the church allows the marriage under God's law; what authority does the government have to dissolve it or to say it is not legal? That is the argument in a nutshell.

I say don't worry about the impact on the economy to allow same sex marriages. The whole economy is in the toilet anyway. We don't have enough Gold in Fort Knox to cover the amount of debt we have printed in cash. So, our money is really just about worthless... So, why not do what is right bite the bullet and give gays their rights as equal citizens and recover the economy. Trust me on this Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals are the most creative, resourceful, and inventive people I know. Treat us right and we just might be able to start recovering our country financially.

 

[tampa24]

I'm glad to know that you still perform gay marriage ceremonies Jayman. I agree with what you're saying.

 

[joninliverton]

I understand. I just think that the term civil partnerships indicates that in it is not the same as marriage in some way. Either you are married or you are not. When you talk about civil partnerships you may as well talk about hand-fasting. It is just a way for the heterosexual world to differentiate themselves as better than. Granted they are offering the same rights as married couples at this time. So, if they are why differentiate. It just makes law makers do more work when writing and amending legislation to include the civil partnerships. Just call it marriage and be done with it. LOL Forget the stupid heterosexual's feelings on the matter. I say on this issue it is more than OK to run over them with a freight train and not look back. When you differentiate you segregate. So, why do it. The reason is that sometime in the future married couples may still be able to receive rights not afforded to civil partnerships. Again, it is away of saying you are less than us... Not equal to us in all ways. I believe in this argument it should be all or nothing at all. No, compromise on the principle.

Jayman - It's not what the het's think, it's what the word marriage means in the courts. Not being funny but I think we are far ahead of you guys regarding acceptance of gay "marriages" and other gay rights issues. So I don't think being finicky about the word marriage really has any argument.

 

[Jayman01]

Jayman - It's not what the het's think, it's what the word marriage means in the courts. Not being funny but I think we are far ahead of you guys regarding acceptance of gay "marriages" and other gay rights issues. So I don't think being finicky about the word marriage really has any argument.

Jon, you are awesome guy. What do you expect I was a US Marine. I want it all or nothing. In my book a civil union or partnership is no win at all. It is an appeasement and a way to segregate people. Therefore not acceptable.

Please understand that I have a fair knowledge of theology. Before the Spanish inquisition Gays and Lesbians were openly married in churches of every denomination. People who have never studied theology in depth don't always understand the Bible passages that are used against us (I.e "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13) Two things that need to be noted here. First this is time when the size of tribes of Israel are dwindling. This was spoken to encourage everyone who can to help rebuild the tribes of Israel. Secondly, this was never spoken by God or Jesus. It was spoken by man in this context. Again, I say keep it simple. Marriage is not a sacred union between a man and a woman. Marriage is a sacred union between two people who love each other. Man wrote the definition and man edited it too. It does not matter what the heterosexual population wants to believe. They are not superior to Gays and Lesbians. ((please read "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by Jon Boswell.) it is a little dry but very informative.)

G.W. Hardin with Joseph Crane wrote a book in 1999 entitled "On the Wings of Heaven." Joe asked for G.W. Harden's help in writing this book because G.W. Harden was a New York Time best selling Author. Joe is a heterosexual man who is visited by an Angel named Michael. He is instructed to write a book titled, "Blessings Gifts, and Deeds" Joe is also asked to begin teaching God's truth and to gather the "Sevens." (I was gathered in 2004) Each of the "Sevens" represent one of the seven Chakra's, Churches, or Personalities of man. Michael tells Joe: "Starting another church will serve no useful purpose, and will only confuse people more than they already are. So, over the next two years, you will be told of God's will for his children, and in this time you will choose three women and four men to take this message out into the world. They will know you and you know them. Out of the seven, three will be what you call Gay." Joe objected to this and told the Angel that churches and people would laugh at him because being gay is supposed to be a sin. He joked saying that would be like telling them to sell off all of their ornate objects and and feed the hungry and to open their doors to house the homeless. The Angel then said, "I knew you were the right man for the job." "God does not care what they think, so why should you. Let them forbid what they will, let them be selective with whomever is let into their houses. God is not limited in his love and will not deny the kingdom to anyone."

At a later point in the book Joe broached the subject again with the Angel Michael. The Angel told him, "As long as human kind has walked the Earth, there have been people who are gay-perfect whole and complete just the way they are. You see the more religions get accepted, the more self-righteous it becomes in this good verses-evil. When outside forces begin to let up, pressure begins building from within for conformity, beginning with the smallest number of members who act differently or think differently from the majority. The religions actions become no better than those of earlier persecutors. However, their persecution is now done in the name of God or Jesus or the Bible."

"Sex is a gift from God for you to give to the one that you love as your gift of affection. There is nothing bad or wrong about what gender you give this gift to. It is up to you. However, it is the choice of the receiver to accept it or not."

Anyway, Jon I totally understand your view point. However, I choose not to give away my power of the freedom to choose and be equal to my heterosexual brothers and sisters. As I said, they can make the law. It is just writing on a piece of paper. It holds no power over me regardless of what it reads. I will be married to another man legally under the doctrine of my church and God's laws. What ever right they choose to give me beyond that politically so be it. I will still tell people openly that I am marrying same sex couples and and state that I am married whenever that happens. It is their law let them defend it. Even if it means jail time... I would love to be martyr for this issue any day. I love ya Jon.