California Supreme Court hears arguments as Prop 8 supporters protest. UPDATED: Marrying Robots
By John Amato Thursday Mar 05, 2009 2:26pmKenneth Starr does what he does best.
Those urging the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage seemed to have had a tough row to hoe Thursday, peppered by justices' questions on balancing marriage rights with voters' rights to change the state constitution.
After three hours of arguments, it seemed as though the seven justices leaned against voiding the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed last year, but their stance on Proposition 8's constitutionality was less clear.
They're grappling with issues such as what "inalienable" means when used to describe a constitutional right; whether such rights can be limited or revoked by an amendment, by a revision or at all; and how majority rule balances with protection of historically disadvantaged minorities' fundamental liberties. The court will rule within 90 days.
Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr — best known for his role as a special prosecutor investigating various activities of President Bill Clinton — argued for Proposition 8's proponents that the people's right to change the constitution as they see fit amounts to "sovereignty," and an "inalienable" right "cannot be taken away except with the appropriate process."
Starr said the court's own precedents say a constitutional revision is necessary only for changes to government's basic structure, and to require revisions to alter or limit individual rights would be "an unprecedented revolution in this court's jurisprudence."
UPDATE: Meanwhile in North Carolina, Terri Schiavo activist David Gibbs III is worried that gay marriage may lead to us all marrying Cylons. I'm partial to a Number Six or Eight myself.
David Gibbs III, a lawyer who in 2005 fought to keep brain-damaged Terri Schiavo on life support, told rally participants gay marriage would "open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina.
"Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?" Gibbs asked. "Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots."
...Sen. Jim Jacumin, a Republican representing Burke and Caldwell counties and one of the co-sponsors of the bill, read most of Genesis 2, the biblical passage in which woman is created out of Adam's rib to be his "helper."
Join the Courage Campaign with Sean Penn here.
No matter what the state Supreme Court decides, the fight for equality will continue in California and across the country.
Login or Register to post comments.
It's great to see so many came out, and they're not gonna take it!
No matter how hard I try and I sure have tried, I will never ever understand some people's fear of gay marriage. I have listened to the arguments and they just are not backed up by facts, in fact, not a single fact. It's some sort of feeling they have about the idea of two people of the same sex having the rights they themselves have. These people just can't open their minds to change even if it's not a change in their own lives.
the question that needs to be asked...why is it so ez to change the cali state constitution, yet so hard to raise taxes?
and what if the voters decided they wanted to reinact slavery?
Well, they could reenact slavery, it just wouldn't be able to enforce it. The federal constitution has something to say about that. Now, if the whole country wanted slavery back, it would take an amendment, but it's possible. (And this is why keeping peoples hands off the Constitution is important.)
But that was Ken Starr''s point; the thing about popular sovereignty is that we really are sovereign. There is no natural law, we can decide what rights are fundamental. Starr had a good day, probably because it looks like the law is on his side in this case. California SC ruled a while ago that capital punishment violated the fundamental right against cruel and unusual punishment in the Cal Const. That decision was reversed by a ballot initiative, and the court said the people of California had the right to do that. I think that's the ball game. I don't see much difference between the two cases.
The atty for San Francisco had a rough time arguing these fundamental rights are different from cruel & unusual punishment, though she did a very good job in her rebuttal. The other lawyers didn't do very well at all. Jerry Brown's deputy AG made just a silly case against the ban and was beaten up so badly by the court I'm sure he needed help getting home.
On the bright side, the court seemed eager to find away not to invalidate the marriages that already happened. They seemed to think that "will not be recognized" means only in the future. I wonder, if that's indeed what they decide, if California will then also have to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states and countries before Nov. 5, 2008?
Anyway, it looks like, if Californians want gay marriage, they're going to have to convince more Californians to want it as well. I don't think the court's going to help them out.
This country's foundational document is not the Constitution, it's the Declaration of Goddamn Independence. The Constitution merely sets up the government; the Declaration set forth the principles.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"Unalienable" -- or "inalienable" -- means an inherent right, one that is natural, that can't be taken away by law, you can't even give them up by choice. They are your Rights not because your government "gives" them to you, or the mob rule of your fellow citizen "permits" them, they are natural... and it should be fricking obvious that once a right is established under law, it cannot be taken away. And indeed, under America's laws, rights have generally been expansive: the big ones -- like the right to vote, civil rights, etc. -- have expanded beyond the limited scope of what "free men" was once understood to mean.
The law is there to let us argue the fine points: What do we mean by "all men?" What do we mean by "equal?" What exactly does "cruel" and "unusual" mean, and is it possibly that a quickly and mercifully meted death might qualify? Is the "right to bear arms" absolute, given the modifications about a "well-regulated militia"?
But the right to marry is relatively simple -- if two persons are understood to have the right to have their relationship legally and publicly recognized in a contract we call "marriage," and if it is now understood that men and women are essentially equal under the law, then it shouldn't matter what kind of fleshy bits are attached to their groins. A contract between two persons is a contract; love is love.
Yeah, I'm sorry if this is a bit late, but I had a drink -- it's 60 degrees in Wisconsin tonight. "Natural Law" was a very firm belief with the federal founders, that God gives us certain unalienable rights. Sadly, that's not much of a constitutional argument today, and the California AG relied on 1880s cases to make his point. As I said, he was beaten up pretty badly, and I'm not all that sorry that God isn't a major player in this controversy.
Sadly, the Declaration of Independence is not part of American law, it's basically a f**k you to George III. It's important, but it's never been law -- or the slavery question would have been settled in 1790.
The question before the California court today wasn't right vs. wrong, it was "what power do we have to tell the California electorate they're wrong?" Sadly, California has a long body of case law that says popular sovereignty trumps the Supreme Court. So i think, regardless of the outcome you'd prefer, Prop 8 will survive.
On the up side, I'm sure Californians will eventually vote to allow gay marriage and, even now, the case is not about rights (the rights are the same for both according to the supreme Court) but about whether it's called 'marriage' or 'civil union', but it appears up to the people of California to decide when they're ready. I'm afraid that's just what the law if California permits.
As for the right to bear arms, that question was settled last summer, and you lost. I agree with your position, but sometimes courts don't agree with me, and I have to live in the real world, not the world as I think it should be. I'm saying, keep telling me the way it should be, but give me some constitutional arguments as well. We're not shootin' at the British from behind trees anymore.
My Republican dad, when asked about this once (by his good little lbieral daughter! lol), turned to me and said, "Do you really think a man shoving his dick up another man's ass is natural? Or RIGHT?"
When I tried to correct him, and tell him that actually 70% of polled gay men said they do NOT perform anal itnercourse in any way, he just kind of blew me off mid-sentence...
Sounds like an allegory for the whole damned shebang, doesn't it?
... doing it to a woman is in some way more natural?
If I had just a little bit bigger balls (LOL pun totally intended) I would have asked him if he likes lesbian porn (he already gets Playboy in the mail, so it wouldn't surprise me to know he looks at video porn)... Or if I had GIGANTIC balls as big as the swing of Tiger Woods, I'd ask him if he had ever done it with my mom...
But, in all likelihood, even at my ripe old age of 22, he'd probably slap me across the face for being so disrespectful.
But since it is, it must be available to all people.
Marriage is a legal contract between two people. The contract protects both parties in different ways, depending on the state you're in. If both people are consenting adults, how can the law prevent it? It just doesn't make sense.
...relationships. Somebody's gotta think about ideas of love and matrimony when a person will be simply a digital representation of an uploaded personality which is then downloaded to a new synthetic/vat grown body. But seriously, this dude is crazy.
Gibb's said "unusual marriage in North Carolina!" "A woman is created from Adam's rib to his helper" helper of what?! People actually talk like this? OMG.
Kenneth Starr, did you think we forgot about you and the $40mil you spent of taxpayers money only to discover Clinton got a blow job from an intern? What is it with this guy and what people do behind closed doors. How is Gay marriage going to lead to anything but marriage? I mean really!!!!!!!
One thing it might lead to is more loving homes for some kids who need them.
according to the Bible version of creation, and later it was ok to have multiple wives, as God just couldn't make up His minds. The Bible doesn't make a good source for laws, as it sanctions capital punishment for disobedient children and is generally infected with psychotic jibberish.
...it will be a crime against hate.
only turnovers will have sanctity.
I'm convinced that the Mormons who gave overwhelmingly and powered the grassroots effort were profoundly terrified that marriage equality would lead to polygamy; I can't guess whether the men or potential first wives were more terrified.
But watch the Big Love vacation episode, and you will understand why every LDS member would fight to the end against a redefinition of marriage.
Would they be allowed to marry each other?
This is so silly. There's no human rights issue in limiting contracts to humans. Just because we allow gay marriage (or interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage or any of the other "non-traditional" marriages we support) doesn't mean that we have to allow animals to marry inanimate objects.
We issue drivers licenses to homosexuals. Does that mean we have to issue them to houseplants and pets?
There's also no human rights issue involved in limiting contracts to two and only two people. If, for example, you want to redress a grievance under the Equal Opportunity Employment Act, you can do so on the basis of race or gender, but not on the basis of being a group of people instead of one person.
So the whole "we'll have to allow polygamy" thing is a red herring.
Personally, I don't have a problem moving to extend marriage laws to plural marriage. As a practical matter, I don't think now is the time. There's no substantive movement and the existing plural marriage communities don't enjoy much support in the electorate.
The same was true of the gay community 30 years ago, which is why fighting for gay marriage 30 years ago would probably not have been a good idea.
He never thought of marrying the chimp or teaching it to drive.
He did have multiple wives, but one at a time. And the damn chimp ate the houseplants.
We issue drivers licenses to homosexuals. Does that mean we have to issue them to houseplants and pets?
Thank you for formulating a succinct and brilliant counter to this idiotic argument.
stet up-arrangement-institution. I know from experience I been married for 22 years.
I've been married twice. I know what getting out of a marriage is all about. Getting out of the first one was sad and strange, it all came down in the court's eyes of who would get which stuff. I have been in my second marriage for 22 years also. I did it right this time and I plan on being in this one forever. :)
I cannot imagine a law being made that would tell my husband and I that we could not remain married because the public thought it best for the community.
have any better thing to do then to try to control others.
Unfortunately most are politicians and preachers.
You got that right!
I mean it's not like gay people were invented just a few years back. They have always been members of society, they have never been given the respect they deserve and that is the real shame here.
I remember the days when you could get beat up just for wearing long hair.
rhyme with Adam and Eve. That's why we use Steve instead.
supposed to be free!
Who the hell told you that? :-D
Prop 8 needs to go.
"The trouble all started when a young female intern began to spend several hours each day with Kenji, testing his systems and loading new software routines. When it came time to leave one evening, however, Kenji refused to let her out of his lab enclosure and used his bulky mechanical body to block her exit and hug her repeatedly. The intern was only able to escape after she had frantically phoned two senior staff members to come and temporarily de-activate Kenji."
http://www.muckflash.com/?p=200
"Two ribs don't make a wrong!"
Now you can see why they fired me as their slogan writer.
but given the state of anatomical knowledge back when God turned the lights on 6,000 years ago, why do you think it was determined that Adam's rib was the right part to start wimmen folk with?
It was because a man back then was likely to have one less rib on one side than the other...
Of course, I don't know about that, and it's all just friggin symbolism anyway, so...
that Eve wasn't taken from Adam's feet to be beneath him, and she wasn't taken from his head to be above him, but from his rib to be close to his side.
To bad these are the same people who insist on feminine submission...
And I am SOOOOOOO glad I didn't come from a place like that.
As conservative as my entire family may be, one thing they are not is mysogynistic. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But you know what? Sometimes, I'll bet even my family members think of it, and in the deepest, darkest corner of their hearts (you know, the same one where women stash that pleasure they'd receive for being eye candy), they do really think that women are all bad, etc.
This scares me.
I was in a lightly complementarian church that only insisted on women's submission in the home, but allowed women to preach and have the title of pastor, etc. But there are some that take Paul literally when he said let women keep silent in the churches... It's sad and scary...
Well, the church I attended and was confirmed in (confirmed and duly renounced Lutheran here, btw), was very mum on the subject. Treated everybody nicely, etc etc. But I never saw any gay couples there. And I also saw many "examples" of "good behavior" whilst there.
For instance, the pastor's daughter and her husband ran (and still run) the youth program... She just had her 7th kid, all boys, is pregnant again (despite the doctors telling her that her health is at risk, her mother is furious at her for this), and the parents home school all of them, as they travel around and perform in Christian-type rock shows.
Many of the women in the church stayed home and took care of the kids, etc. Of course, the church is also based mostly on its elderly congregation, so this might not be such a surprise.
But hoenstly, I think, deep down, as I said, they all feel just a little bit like women should wear skirts, give oral sex without expecting or even THINKING of getting any in return, and pretty much stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Just a teensy, tiny bit.
Culture wars are the only crap the right cares about (that and tax cuts). Unfortunately for them, people are so worried about the economy right now.
I say, overturn Prop 8, and then make Prop 8 supporters pay any court costs, especially if the costs are a strain on California's funds!
Ask for a revote.
No way it passes again.
Good point. But the supporters of a ban are so stubborn...I guarantee you that if there's a vote turning down a ban, or affirming the right to marry, the social conservatives will try to get another ban on the next ballot!
I know I will get flak for this, but i really don't see anything wrong with multiple wives at all...It would be real strange but, I think I could get used to it. Freedom strictly; if you want it, or want to do it, and it doesn't cause another physical harm, it should not be illegal. Nobody can use mentally harmful only because everyone will be annoyed by something. :P
Hmm...you know, in a sense I am not so sure that polygamy should be illegal...*but* as someone who's very interested in learning about polygamy from a sociological and anthropological standpoint, I'm not sure it's all that necesarily beneficial to the women and children in the arrangement. Look at the FLDS. There would need to be protections involved (altho I think that legalization could kinda sorta help out with that).
The parent numbers would go up, lets just say if I were to marry a lesbian couple, we would make 3 parents. I can't hardly handle 1 girl, so the thought of trying to satisfy more than 1 is over whelming to me. I could give it a try tho, lol. Where would I sleep? Oh boy.
Good point, there would be more parents, and I have noticed from what I've learned that some of the women like that they are able to share the child care and home keeping duties, according to what they actually like to do (like one wife that was interviewed said she hates to cook, so she's glad other wives enjoy cooking).
I won't go there about the men folks' "duties" ;)
(x) number of spouses is one thing. A human adult spouse has volition and can make a contract. Robots and Animals do not have that capacity, and marriage is, at rock bottom, a contract.
What a frickin moron. Mr Gibbs: You have just exposed yourself TO THE WORLD as being a stupid ignorant dumbass. I hope you are proud.
... why no one ever asks:
Since 'marriage' is understood to be a union between between a man and a woman and it is a two-step process, usually first the civil ceremony followed by a religious ceremony, and they don't object to civil unions, what are they complaining about? The pro same-sex marriage people are not looking to have any religious sect 'sanctify' their marriage. They just want the 'secular' government to give them the same recognition. Gays have their own churches who will perform that function - totally apart from anyone else. What they really want is foster their religious views upon everybody else.
And forget the polygamy and bestiality crap, it will be between 2 persons.
Is bestiality the relentless pursuit of finding the best mate?
Damn it Gibbs: You just crushed Party Leader Limbaugh's dream of wife #4!
I'm telling ya... Cindy McCain gets NOOOO respect!
zealous one-cell brain religious bastards
are just full of dodo. i am tired of their
f#cking god creation myths. we all know that
god is really a dog who has spelling dyslexia.
...saw this story and freaked out:
http://www.muckflash.com/?p=200
I had a talk with two guy dudes I work with the other day and both agreed that gays should find their own name for "marriage". They don't call the partner a husband or a wife so why call it marriage.
But no one wants that because what would there be to fight about then?
.
Proposition 8 = Religiously based dogma dictating laws
Or for short...
... American Taliban!
.
Seems to me an inalienable right cannot be denied by one generation to another. I wonder if Gibbs has his eye on any pet or robot in particular.
These insane hate filled Christians hate what the United States stands for. Why don't these piles of treasonous shit pack up and move some place where their core ideologies of hatred and theocracy are more in keeping with the government? Some place like Iran.
Iran would not accept them. Islamic law forbids depictions of prophets and Christers make a mockery of Jebus with their bumper stickers and dime store replicas. I'd be embarrassed to call myself a Christer. Honk if you love Jebus. In case or rapture, this vehicle will be empty. &c.
I had planned on marrying my Dalmatian a while back, but she ran off. I haven't seen her since. It must be my bad breath or something.
Login or Register to post comments.