The California Supreme Court is taking up the issue of whether not the sponsors of the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, should be allowed to defend the duly adopted amendment in federal court. Considering the California Supreme Court previously allowed them to defend the amendment, I don't see how they can deny them this time. But marriage neutering advocates will sacrifice just about anything, including their own judicial precedents, in their fanatical pursuit of replacing marriage in our laws with a counterfeit. They will accuse those standing in their way of hate for using the very same arguments they just used. Here's Maura Dolan's report in the Los Angeles Times.
It... isn't... a... ban.
Considering the whole point of the initiative process is to be a check on the powers of the state government, then if the sponsors can't defend the initiatives, the process will be dead. Since the Left is in power now in California, that will be just fine by them, even though the process was put into place to promote democracy and the power of the people.
The federal courts should never have gotten involved in the matter in the first place. If they are going to take up something that should be an internal matter to California, they need to consider California's constitution, which includes the initiative process. What actual injury have the same-sex couples suffered? California law treats domestic partnerships like marriage. So if there is an injury, that injury comes from federal law, not the California Marriage Amendment. So an argument can be made that those who challenged the amendment should have instead sued over federal law.
Marriage neutering advocates continue to spend resources on this matter that could be going to address actual problems homosexual people are enduring:
It is Constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently. The state has an interest in the uniting of a bride and a groom that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary associations. Like it or not, the California Marriage Amendment did not violate equal access or equal protection requirements. The argument to neuter marriage rests on a contradiction - that men are women are not different and that a homosexual person can't get a marriage license with someone of the opposite sex (even though they can and have). Their argument is bankrupt. Like the state they control.
The California Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether conservatives who sponsored Proposition 8 are entitled to appeal last year's federal ruling that overturned the 2008 same-sex marriage ban.
It... isn't... a... ban.
The court's ruling, due 90 days after argument, will determine whether all initiative sponsors in California are legally entitled to defend their measures in state court when the governor and the attorney general refuse.
Considering the whole point of the initiative process is to be a check on the powers of the state government, then if the sponsors can't defend the initiatives, the process will be dead. Since the Left is in power now in California, that will be just fine by them, even though the process was put into place to promote democracy and the power of the people.
Strict legal rules about who has standing — the right to pursue a case — have ended many high-profile constitutional disputes in federal courts. Federal judges in recent years have embraced the narrow use of standing to limit the kinds of cases that can be brought. Under federal law, a person must have suffered an actual injury, among other requirements, to have standing in court. California courts have been more flexible in granting standing.
The federal courts should never have gotten involved in the matter in the first place. If they are going to take up something that should be an internal matter to California, they need to consider California's constitution, which includes the initiative process. What actual injury have the same-sex couples suffered? California law treats domestic partnerships like marriage. So if there is an injury, that injury comes from federal law, not the California Marriage Amendment. So an argument can be made that those who challenged the amendment should have instead sued over federal law.
If the 9th Circuit determines that ProtectMarriage has standing, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel is likely to overturn Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, and the case will probably then go to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the U.S. Supreme Court could reject the appeal on grounds of standing, limiting the case's effect to California.
Marriage neutering advocates continue to spend resources on this matter that could be going to address actual problems homosexual people are enduring:
Tuesday's hearing will be the fourth time the California Supreme Court has heard a [neutering] marriage case.
It is Constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently. The state has an interest in the uniting of a bride and a groom that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary associations. Like it or not, the California Marriage Amendment did not violate equal access or equal protection requirements. The argument to neuter marriage rests on a contradiction - that men are women are not different and that a homosexual person can't get a marriage license with someone of the opposite sex (even though they can and have). Their argument is bankrupt. Like the state they control.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment