Prop 8 Supreme Court Hearings

Yesterday I watched the supreme court hearings on prop 8 (all 3.5 hours of them). From what I can tell, it doesn't look too good for the challengers. 

At first I thought that prop 8 didn't stand a chance. The supreme court had no problem overturning prop 22, so I thought that as long as the decision is left to them, they wouldn't have a problem overturning prop 8 either. Add that to the fact that the attorney general switched sides from defending prop 8 to challenging it, and it seemed that prop 8 was already out the window.

After watching the hearings, it seems that prop 8 is going to stand. Prop 22 was only overturned by a 4-3 majority and one of the justices who opposed prop 22 (Joyce Kennard) wasn't even interested in hearing the challenges to prop 8.

The only thing that seems to be up in the air at this point is whether or not the marriages that were already performed are going to be considered valid.

So, what do you think about this issue?

If you have the time, you can watch the hearings HERE.

I think they are letting religion play a too big of role in this issue. Also the signs I was seeing around my house were very misleading. A LOT of the signs just said things like "Yes on 8 = Parental Rights" & "Yes on  8 = Religious Freedom" Most signs didn't even say what the ACTUAL issue was they were voting on. It was very frustrating. I obiviously voted no. I am a Christian but I believe that God in his almightyness would not condemn two people in a loving and caring relationship no matter who they were with. But with that being said Marriage to the state is not a religious bond it is a legal bond and there are many benefits that married couples get over domestic partnerships.

As far as the marriages that were performed staying legal I most definately think they should but I can also see a reason as to why they shouldn't because of the fairness of other gay couples. If you were legally married though and had you ceremony and then someone told you that it didn't really count that would hurt A LOT. I am sure I am going to get bashed for some things said here but this is how I feel.

Original Post by blewpicksy:

I think they are letting religion play a too big of role in this issue. Also the signs I was seeing around my house were very misleading. A LOT of the signs just said things like "Yes on 8 = Parental Rights" & "Yes on  8 = Religious Freedom"

Those arguments baffle me because they're so far from accurate.  The first makes no sense at all.  How do any parents lose any rights by certain other couples being allowed to marry?  I might maybe be able to argue that tax benefits, etc. to married couples in general are unfair to singles (especially when you compare singles to DINKs), but that's still got nothing to do with parental rights.

And the second sign's even more ludicrous.  "Religious freedom" includes the freedom to choose no religion or the freedom to choose a religion that accepts homosexual couples.  I believe what they actually meant was "Yes on 8 = My Right to Oppress Others by Pushing My Religion on Them".

@susiecue - both sides of just about any issue will have ignorant followers. What do you think about the issue itself, or the supreme court's (apparent) position on it?

The more I think about it, the more I think that government linking anything to marriage is an improper mingling of church and state.  Marriage started as an inherently religious ritual; I don't see why government needed to get involved  through licensing, ensuring tax benefits and health benefits, and the lawyer-supporting divorce-processes ($?).

Hate to say it, but since Proposition 8 was an amendment to the state constitution, I'd imagine the judges view its definitions as being retroactive...then again, they may not like being blamed for an instantaneous explosion of automatic divorces...peoples is peoples, and all that.

From watching the video, it seemed that the justices were suggesting that the prop 8 campaign wasn't clear to voters that a yes vote would retroactively invalidate marriages that already took place. Apart from the language of the amendment itself, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," the qualification of prior marriages being invalidated was only explicitly stated in a rebuttal argument in the voter materials.

The justices may make the argument that retroactive invalidation of the marriages was not made clear to the voters; therefor, the marriages would remain valid.

I had a business meeting in San Francisco on Thursday and found myself right in the middle of the demonstration.  It was awesome.  Must have been what it was like during the 1960's.

I am a consertaive person.  As far as Prop 8 is concerned, I just want to ask some questions.  How is it different than previous laws not allowing black people to marry white people?  Was that wrong?  Why does someone else have the right to tell you who you can and cannot marry? We have no right to infringe on other Americans liberties. 

Original Post by simwaves1:

From watching the video, it seemed that the justices were suggesting that the prop 8 campaign wasn't clear to voters that a yes vote would retroactively invalidate marriages that already took place. Apart from the language of the amendment itself, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," the qualification of prior marriages being invalidated was only explicitly stated in a rebuttal argument in the voter materials.

The justices may make the argument that retroactive invalidation of the marriages was not made clear to the voters; therefor, the marriages would remain valid.

 Unless it end up being like Oregon and then they get annuled or whatever nice term the politicians want to use. In oregon any homosexual couple that got married we no longer considered so when they reversed it. Also, part of homosexuals getting parental freedom is that they would be more likely to get to adopt. As of right now, most homosexual couples are turned away when trying to adopt. And they don't get to claim social security benefits if their partner dies, many employers don't recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships and don't give health benefits to homosexual partners...The list is endless and it needs to change. Marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults despite their sexual orientation.

I totally agree with you, blewpicksy

Original Post by dnrothx:

The more I think about it, the more I think that government linking anything to marriage is an improper mingling of church and state.  Marriage started as an inherently religious ritual; I don't see why government needed to get involved  through licensing, ensuring tax benefits and health benefits, and the lawyer-supporting divorce-processes 

Amen.

Original Post by simwaves1:

From watching the video, it seemed that the justices were suggesting that the prop 8 campaign wasn't clear to voters that a yes vote would retroactively invalidate marriages that already took place. Apart from the language of the amendment itself, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," the qualification of prior marriages being invalidated was only explicitly stated in a rebuttal argument in the voter materials.

The justices may make the argument that retroactive invalidation of the marriages was not made clear to the voters; therefor, the marriages would remain valid.

 Heh.  Yeah, let's go with that.  :D

The art of the possible...

I support gay marriage. I'm not a 'phobe. I have friends in California who don't know where their marriage stands because of this. Of course I'm on their side.

As for the "marriage is a religious thing" argument, I've met plenty of married atheists. The one concession I would give to the other side is that churches that oppose it should not be forced to perform same sex marriages. The marriages can easily be performed in city hall, or by the Unitarians or Pagans or whoever else doesn't have a lump of coal where the sun don't shine over this.

Oh, I wasn't saying that atheists don't get married.  Just that the whole idea of marriage seems to have religious roots, no matter who decides to get married nowadays.

If you want to get right down to it, marriage was a property rights issue, not a religious issue to begin with.

Men used to own their wives; women had no legal or political rights. In some cultures she had a right to a divorce if he cheated on her, but he often killed her before she could get a divorce if she made a stink about it - and he could do that without punishment, because she belonged to him.  In other cultures, he could have as many wives as he could financially support.   If she had a politically powerful or rich father, she could appeal to him to get her out of the marriage, but that would be her main option.  That or run away and hope to escape.  This is still the case in some countries, sometimes legally, sometimes informally but culturally supported.

So, a lot has changed in 'western society' since then.

edit re #12: economic roots more probably. Marriage served to ally families, combine fortunes, gain power, afford status, ensure the continuation of lines   - sanctity was an afterthought. ;)

Where there's money - the government gotta get a piece.

Don't understand why broke-ass broke California can't see the vast economic opportunity in allowing gay marriage  - look at all the licenses they can sell!!!

Eh, but think about the concept of marriage when and where the Constitution was written, which is probably what matters.  I'm thinking it came from Christianity.

kathy is right.

the government gets a piece and dating from when the church was more like the government (middle ages), the church gets a piece.

We tell ourselves all sorts of tales to make ourselves feel better about our history.  But in 1789, a woman was still the property of her father or her husband and had no political rights, and only a few legal ones.

By then the concept of marriage as something sanctified by God was certainly well-ingrained into the social conciousness. There was not a way to get one without a minister or priest back then, was there?

Stands to reason the framers would not have anticipated this argument. But their smart addition of 'oh and BTW, anything we forgot is a right of the individual, as well' should cover it.

I'm not sure what Nomo is arguing here.

Say what you want about a wife being property and whatnot (which was absolutely true), but since Church and "government" (feudal lords whose authority allegedly came from God, ultimately) were interwoven prior to the government, marriage was still a religious institution that people entered into, whatever reasons aside.  Therefore, for our current government to link marriage to anything is just a remnant of those days of yore and such a remnant should be jettisoned.

While I agree with you wholeheartedly - I can't see the governments of counties giving up the income.

So you think the anti-gay marriage laws could be challenged under the first ammendment?