SCOTUS/Prop 8 predictions?

Baby steps.

Apologies, normally I respond to posts in chronological order and I missed this one. Anyway. To reply - If something is wrong it's wrong. Saying lay back and take it, there's no point in crying is never a winning argument or strategy.

You seem to be ignoring Liet's point.

I responded to Liet, and I'm certain he can speak for himself.

No, I'm saying you may as well take it and stifle the tears if you're not going to have the balls for the big fat revolution.

Same goes for "donkeys", for the shit they cry about, and don't fix.

No matter what, Poodle's right to marry his AR-15 is unchanged.

You responded to his post, not his point. What entity is charged with contract enforcement in our society?

As a general rule I don't bother with people who are completely ignoring the point. There's not much purpose in arguing with people who are deliberately refusing to read and respond to what you actually write. They can be mocked for their willful ignorance--and you may consider yourself so mocked--but trying to have a discussion with them is like trying to have a discussion with your cat.

I completely agree that in any society when we want the state involved in things like division of property and child custody there HAS to be a legal instrument enforced by the state.

I just tend to think that the plurality of the country has come to the point where it would be best to take the word "marriage" off of that instrument.

Make it so that EVERYONE alike needs a "domestic partnership" contract to go along with their private marriage if they wish to enjoy the structure of state enforcement.

In some sense it's simply semantics, but semantics is what all the traditionalists use to twist up their panties. Take that arrow out of their quiver.

What I've heard is this:

If SCOTUS says that the group defending Prop 8 has no standing then the ban on gay marriage will stand. Why?

Because when this went to the courts the state of California didn't want to defend Prop 8 and dropped out of the case and the group supporting Prop 8 took over and the 9th Circuit Court took the case on. If SCOTUS rules that the group supporting Prop 8 never had standing then that means the Supreme Court is also saying the 9th Circuit Court should have known that and the 9th Circuit Court's ruling is null and void. The ruling from the 9th Circuit Court should have never existed.

That means Prop 8 would still be the law of the land and groups against it would have to again file another lawsuit to get it back in the court system.

I talk to my cats all the time.

Let us know if they start talking back.

So what happens if the state of California once again chooses not to defend Prop 8? If the state isn't defending it and pro-Prop 8 groups have no standing to defend it, there would be no one to act as defense in the case. If there's no defendant to show up in court, wouldn't that lead to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs?

Don't know.

It's kinda of silly. If the state won't defend the law then the court should allow another group to defend the law.

Otherwise the states could get rid of any law they wanted by just not defending challenges in court.

Think of it as the executive's ex post facto veto.

^I don't understand why they couldn't just say "these guys don't have the standing to defend this, and because the state won't defend it, we rule in favor of the plaintiff."

Also,

It goes something like this: *purr* "You're my bitch, human. Feed me."

We shouldn't be changing the name to placate religious nut jobs.

I say we since marriage is one of those things recognized internationally, so it would still be well established that marriage is exactly equal to domestic partnership unless you wanted to cut the US off into its own little bubble where relationships of its citizens are not recognized internationally and vice versa.

Also opponents of same sex marriage don't care about the name. The Mormon church for example has the position that it is equally against same sex marriage or anything equivalent to it. A few years ago a couple of the Australian states were talking about giving more legal recognition to homosexual civil unions, they were overruled by the federal government on the grounds that they were trying to sneak around the legal ban on same sex marriage and that it having a different name didn't matter.

If you sue someone and no one shows up to defend it, do you lose?

It's called a default judgment. The plaintiff, Prop 8 Opponents, submit their case to the court and if the state (or someone who has standing) choose not to defend it, then the court decides the case on the plaintiff's brief - i.e. most likely they win and Prop 8 is voided.

Wasn't the lower courts judgement already that the prop 8 supporters had no standing?

No the lower court had a trial on the merits and found Prop 8 unconstitutional.

The Prop 8 supporters appealed and the Appellate Court certified a question for review to the CA supreme to give an opinion on standing. Then after that delay, the Appellate Court ruled that the Prop 8 supporters had standing and upheld the lower court's ruling throwing out Prop 8. This appeal followed.

NPR reported today that some of the comments out of Kennedy has SCotUS watchers thinking he might punt. Basically it is looking like a split decision with Kennedy the one left to make up his mind. Also Kennedy supposedly likes to make narrow decisions not big sweeping ones like how Scalia ran a muck with Citizens United.

Also, per usual, Scalia had one of the dumber arguments:

Couldn't that apply to free speech and gun rights too? Fucking idiot, stuck in the 18th century.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

When the question of same sex marriage became an issue I looked into the relationship between couples and the benefits afforded by the state. I found no justification for the state to deny access to said benefits based on marital status.

Futhermore the state has no justifiction to define who can potentially wed. And no that doesn't legalize any relationship that would be otherwise illegal.

All those crying that it's a civil rights affair are morally contradicting themselves. Marriage is a discriminantory institution, expanding who can be married does nothing to remedy the situation. In fact it legitimizes the state continuing to control what should be a private affair. Single folks should have the same rights as married folks.

I've yet to hear a convincing counter-argument.

It's like you guys are competing to be each others Salacious Crumb.

You could find a better a Jabba.

By that logic I shouldn't bother with you.

Why bother with meaningless insults? It does nothing to validate or strengthen your opinion.

Not that I disagree with you, but:

"States' rights!!! " have long been abused and the rallying cry of those on the wrong side of history.