Comments on: Calif. high court: Prop 8 supporters can continue case

By: Andrew Nguyen

Andrew Nguyen — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:24:18 +0000

Gay Marriage will have a good chance of winning but again this should not be at the expense of our Democratic justice system breaking down. People often criticize that gays want to be a “special rights group”. If gay marriage comes at the expense of a legal constitutional procedure being hindered (i.e. No standing for the Citizen to defend a publicly approved measure in Court) then the Democratic System will be at stake (i.e. by creating an exception for gay rights to advance without regards to proper democratic procedures).

By: Peter the saint

Peter the saint — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:23:19 +0000

I think that is a good ruling from the CA supreme court. Just imagine if the people of CA had passed an initiative requiring anti-bullying laws in the schools. And imagine that anti-gay groups brought suit to reject that vote, while a republican governor and AG both declined to defend the initiative passed by the people. It would be fair and just to allow proponents of the anti-bullying law be allowed to defend the peoples’ law. Everyone gets their day in court… even the idiots. :)

By: Skeeter Sanders

Skeeter Sanders — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:55:13 +0000

The supporters of Poop. 8 have more than Judge Walker’s decision to fight against. They also have two U.S. Supreme Court precedents on the civil and constitutional rights of gay and lesbian Americans to contend with.

They have to convince the ninth Circuit Court — and ultimately, the Supreme Court itself — that the high court’s decision in Romer V. Evans (1996) that states cannot single out gay and lesbian Americans for exclusion from constitutional and civil rights and privileges enjoyed by all other Americans does not apply in Prop. 8 (Highly unlikely, given that the justices struck down a voter-approved Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying gay and lesbian residents in that state equal constitutional and civil rights).

They must also convince the Ninth Circuit that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that fully decriminalized same-gender sexual relationships — and effectively removed all de jure obstacles to gay and lesbian couples marrying legally — does not apply either (Again, highly unlikely).

Then there is the high court’s landmark 1967 ruling, Loving v. Virginia, in which the justices unanimously struck down laws that barred interracial couples from marrying.

In all three cases, the justices ruled that the right of all Americans to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be taken away by government or by a fickle populace against an entire class of law-abiding citizens, no matter how unpopular that class is.

As an openly bisexual African-American man who is a second-generation beneficiary of the Loving v. Virginia ruling (My wife is white — and yes, she not only knows that I’m bi, but we are in an open marriage), I cannot see how the justices can come to any conclusion other than that Prop. 8 (and, by extension, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and all 31 other state laws that bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:33:00 +0000

If we gays were actually trying to force the different religions to marry us, then they would have a definitive and valid argument. But this is not so. In the New York marriage equality law, there is a religion clause that prevents this from actually happening. Maryland has a similar exemption as well. So if religion is threatened, how is this so? What is really going on is that religion is overextending itself to control government affairs. I thought that we lived in a democracy and NOT a theocracy.

By: Andrew Nguyen

Andrew Nguyen — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:31:04 +0000

In my very personal opinion, the California Supreme Court is RIGHT in allowing the Proposition 8 Proponents to have standing to defend the State Law in Court. I am all for GAY MARRIAGE, which I believe to be a fundamental human right everybody on this earth rightfully deserves and possesses. But the issue here is the American System for DEMOCRACY, and in a TRUE DEMOCRACY, there ought to be a channel, a right, a privilege, a procedure to defend a State Law overturned by the Court. To go out and defend a Court-overturned law is a HUGE and DIFFICULT task that a group of, say, concerned citizens nornally cannot assume! Therefore the Governor is the one that is vested the duty to do the job by the State Constitution (Or by the Federal Constitution if this is a Federal Law.) However, if the Governor and the Attorney General choose to waive the right to defend the Law out of Conscience reasons, then the Citizen should be able to do it! There should be no blockage to the Justice System. When there are two sides with FULL STANDING each over a case before the Court, then the Court will hear the case and make a Judgement. If we believe in GAY MARRIAGE, why bother about the standing of our concerned fellow citizens who might believe otherwise?

Thought I would like to share a few thoughts. Thank you for time reading.