Prop 8 Will Be Back in Court Monday Morning (June 13, 2011)
June 12th, 2011
Proposition 8′s sponsors will be in court Monday morning to argue whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be vacated on the basis that the long term same-sex relationship he is involved in (and was involved in at the time of the Prop 8 trial, but failed to disclose) constitutes a conflict of interest.
If you want to follow the hearing, and don’t mind going to the website of one of Prop 8′s opponents to do so, then you can find live updates at http://www.afer.org/june13 starting at 9:00am.
Loading ...
Why would someone mind going to a Prop 8 opponent’s website? Afraid they might learn something?
And should the long-term being-a-woman thing prevent female judges from hearing gender-based discrimination cases? Or do we at some point decide to trust in our judges’ abilities as judges to be impartial and determine cases on the facts as presented at trial?
Dahlia Lithwick’s article on this is worth reading: http://www.slate.com/id/2296862/
Judge Walker decision on Prop8 needs to be thrown out because he proved he is unworthy to be a judge to decide this. The case is a no brainer. The tenth amendment of the Constitution recognizes states rights and the rights of their citizens to make states laws. Prop8 was also no ordinary vote, it was a vote of the people to amend their state constitution.
This judge proved how unworthy he was by becoming the first judge to rule that it is unconstitutional for the people of California to amend their own constitution.
Did anyone watch the GOP debate for President and notice the lies and double standard of the SSM advoctes. They asked the candidates for President if they would respect the states right of New Hampshire to have SSM. They claim a federal amendment of man/woman marriage violates the 10th amendment of the Constitution by infringing on states rights. Yet these same SSM advocates want the courts to violate the states rights by imposing SSM from the bench.
And Judge Walker’s decision stands.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/gay-marriage-judge-proposition-8.html
Ummm, no. Not true, Proposition 14 was overturned by the courts. Care to guess why? Even the will of the people needs to be put in check.
The will of the people never needs to be put in check when it comes to amending their own constitution. It is constitutional for the people to amend their own constitution which is exactly what Prop8 was. This federal judge also violated the Bill of Rights and the 10th amendment that deals with states rights.
Just say the GPO debate on CNN the other night. The SSM advocates were employing the old double standard argument. They were opposed to a federal amendment making marriage a man/woman because it violated states rights. The candidates were asked if they would honor New Hampshires states rights.
Notice how the SSM advocates though want the Feds to violate the 10th amendment and states rights by having a federal court impose SSM on the country.
The will of the people is to honor the US Constitution. That’s why Prop 8 is going away in California.
Decent people want equality imposed on the country; same-sex marriage just happens to be the specific issue.
@John Noe
It is not constitutional for “the people” to amend the constitution in order to take away the rights of some of the people. According to what you wrote, brown-eyed people (who outnumber the blue-eyed people) could vote to amend the constitution in order to prevent blue-eyed people from marrying each other. Just because there are more of them. Or at least more of them who vote. Are you SURE that’s what you believe? Majority ALWAYS wins?
Wow, John. So you think writing racism into the the California Constitution is ok? Well, why am I surprised?
“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
Can we say, “Rolling over in his grave”?
It’s time …
http://www.call2fall.com/
The original case brought by Olsen and Boies, Walker’s decision in that case, and Ware’s decision in this case, all could only make sense to those who’s minds are completely blinded by political correctness and the notion that homosexuals need to be accorded special legal considerations that the rest of us are just supposed to be able to do without. That mindset reveals itself in the kind of special pleading being made on behalf of the plaintiffs by the so-called ‘jurists’ in these cases.
Judge Ware asserted during arguments that recusal was unnecessary because there was no evidence that Walker actually intended to ever marry his partner.
But let’s take this case out of a same-sex ‘marriage’ context and see how that kind of reasoning works:
If this were a case over whether a freeway should be allowed to be built through a particular property, and a close relative (or sexual partner) of the presiding judge owned a small farm along the route which stood to gain significantly in value if the freeway was in fact built, nobody would assert that in order to compel that judge to recuse himself you would first need to show that his relative actually intended profit by selling his farm after the highway was constructed. The mere appearance of a potential conflict of interest would warrant a recusal. (At least that’s the standard judges used to hold themselves to.)
But I guess if Vaughn Walker was that presiding judge and his partner owned the small farm that would be different. As practicing homosexuals they’re entitled to special consideration.
The Barnes guy and Emma person along with Sean always play the race card and use the red herrings to distract from the real legal issue.
(1) As a US citizen living in any US state you have a state constitution fully authorized and enpowered by the citizens. One of your most basic and fundamental rights and liberties is the right to amend any such constitution. When you vote to amend your constitution you are exercising your most basic civil right. No judge has the power to deny you the fundamental right of the citizens of the country of the will of the people in making and shaping their constitution.
(2) The tenth amendment is about states rights. The states are the ones who do the marriage license and have a state constitution. A state right that is so strong, it is why a federal amendment making male/female marriage a federal amendment unconstitutional. The opposite is just as true. If a state makes marriage between a man and a woman then the federal government cannot infringe on the rights of a state and its citizens.
Again no federal court has the right to interfere with this. All the phony arguments that Barnes, Emma, and Sean make does not change this fact.
(3) The Massachusetts Supreme Court which imposed homosexual marriage on the state even ruled that it was constitutional to vote on marriage and that the citizens had the right to define marriage. The ultimalte double standard: The homosexual lobbyists want the actual courts that ruled in their favor to be overuled by the feds in order to suit their agenda.
@John Noe
“The Barnes guy and Emma person”? Seriously?
Hey John,
Lemme give you another hint about Sean’s constitution.
It seems to only protect and promote gays, at everyone else’s expense. Everywhere Sean reads protection for gays in his constitution, but then other people either don’t exist, or are denied any right by the constitution to do anything but promote homosexuality.
Sure, ask him about siblings, are they protected with the same demand to alter marriage law for them? Even if they are in a non-sexual committed relationship where they are looking after one of their kids and can be shown to benefit, they just aren’t in his constitution. Their identity doesn’t exist. Same with polygamists, etc…
You’ve correctly identified that Sean’s constitution is his own creation, and any resemblance to the real constitution of the USA is purely imagined.
The 14th amendment was already reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case of same-sex marriage, and they found it so obvious that it didn’t demand marriage to be neutered that they said there wasn’t even a question about it [Baker v Nelson].
I just think it is important to continue to hold Sean and others accountable for thinking and reasoning similar to the famous fallacy in Alice in Wonderland. There the judge finds whatever verdict he wants by labeling what he thinks is important and unimportant. Sean does the same thing by saying who — or rather what identity — he thinks is important, and which one he thinks is unimportant, and then reads into the constitution a whole list of fealty that others have to give to the important identities, including as you point out the inability to have any say in the government whatsoever.
The tenth amendment is really more about state responsibilties than state rights. That part about “reserved for the states and the people” meant, they gotta take care of things the federal government doesn’t. But the only things prohibited to the federal government are stated in Section 9, the Limits on Congress. It was expected that Congress would pass general laws for the general welfare. Many specific responsibilities were assigned to the Federal government in Section 8, but nothing in the Constitution, not even the 10th Amendment, limits the Federal government to those things alone. In fact the Constitution itself calls for the Legislature to enact general laws setting the manner of entering into and the effect of state acts, records, and court procedings, which certainly means marriage. The idea of the Full Faith and Credit clause is that states “ought” to recognize each others marriages and legal decisions. It doesn’t obligate states to honor each others marriages, nor does it say that states don’t need to honor each others marriages, what it says is that Congress is supposed to resolve conflicts like this by general laws so that states can recognize each others acts and decisions. It means Congress should by general law set the effect of marriage (approving of conception of children) and the manner of proving such an effect (be legally and publicly a man and a woman, not siblings or close relatives, not children, not married to anyone else) so that all states are able to recognize each others marriages. (I think states could still further limit the list to exclude first cousins, though I think it would have to recognize first cousin marriages from other states).
You are right no federal court has the right to do this. According to the Constitution, it is the job of the legislature, Congress, to do it.
“the notion that homosexuals need to be accorded special legal considerations that the rest of us are just supposed to be able to do without”
Excuse me, it’s the straight people that are being given special privileges, not the gay people. The gay people, and now, most Americans, believe that if we’re going to privileges straight people, we must equally privilege gay people.
“The mere appearance of a potential conflict of interest would warrant a recusal.”
The appearance of a conflict exists only among those who are obsessed with stopping same-sex marriage. Walker would have been exactly the same person he is now, and if he had rendered a different ruling, you would have had no problem with his sexual orientation or his relationship status. Oh, and waiting until a verdict is rendered is a little late in the game to be deciding that, well, you think he’s biased.
“along with Sean always play the race card and use the red herrings to distract from the real legal issue.”
I often use analogies to help explain why you’re wrong, if that’s what you mean.
“One of your most basic and fundamental rights and liberties is the right to amend any such constitution.”
Then why do so many states have no process for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments??? In fact, crafters of constitutions, state and federal, have raised significant barriers to amending constitutions. Why would they do that if amending the constitution is such a fundamental right?
“The tenth amendment is about states rights.”
That’s rich. What about DOMA? Why is the federal government second-guessing or disfavoring couples whom the states say are married. Prop 8 is not about states rights, but about whether a state can infringe on the US Constitutional right of every American to equal treatment under the law. See US Constitution, 14th Amendment, as well as US Constitution, 5th Amendment (Due Process)
“it was constitutional to vote on marriage and that the citizens had the right to define marriage.”
Of course they can, but they can’t violate the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection in doing so.
“Everywhere Sean reads protection for gays in his constitution, but then other people either don’t exist, or are denied any right by the constitution to do anything but promote homosexuality.”
Actually, Sean sees US citizens, which includes gay and lesbian people, as well as heterosexuals. All are protected by the US Constitution, lacking any verbage stating otherwise.
“You’ve correctly identified that Sean’s constitution is his own creation, and any resemblance to the real constitution of the USA is purely imagined.”
I think Onlawn is the one with the vivid imagination! She thinks that only straight people are protected by the US Constitution, evidently. But a careful reading on that important document reveals no preferences given to straight people, or limits on the rights of gay people.
“I just think it is important to continue to hold Sean and others accountable for thinking and reasoning similar to the famous fallacy in Alice in Wonderland.”
Gosh, Onlawn, what do you suggest? Prison time? The stockades? After this past week, where 20 judges in federal bankruptcy court in California struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, and where another federal judge upheld a gay judge’s right to preside in court, plus an impending marriage equality vote in New York, I can see why you’re frustrated. But the law is what it is.
Leland: Great post, you brought up new things that I never thought of. And I thought Michael E. on NOM had all the right legal answers.
Thanks On Lawn: After a while it is simple to understand. Sean, Barnes, and Emma and the other homosexual rights activists argue a double standard. We have one constitution. The homosexuals get one special intrepretation of the constitution and then the rest of Americia gets theirs.
For example only homosexuals who already have equallity get to not obey the law, make up their own special rights law and then call it equallity. They have the right to marry just like everybody else, they reject it and not obey it, then make up their own law and call it equallity. However only homosexuals get this equallity and intrepretation of the constitution. If someone else wants to marry well then they can just obey the laws equally like everybody else.
The Constitution originally meant “Congress” could not interfere with a state’s decision regarding establishment of religion.
Here is an example from Massachussetts:
Excerpts from all the original state constitutions are at http://www.conservapedia.com/Original_State_Constitutions
“The Constitution originally meant “Congress” could not interfere with a state’s decision regarding establishment of religion.”
That’s not what it meant at all. The Establishment Clause means that the federal government cannot make a law that supports or undermines the practice of religion. Most state constitutions also have an Establishment Clause, explaining why no state has a state religion in the US.
It says, “Congress,” but whether you call it “Congress” or “the federal government,” it would have meant “the States” were free to establish religion as each saw fit.
They do now, but we are talking about the original intent of the US Constitution.
Originally, the states made Christianity the official state religion.
Besides, if the US Constitution had meant “the states” could not establish religion, they would have had to change their constitutions before they ratified the US Constitution.
But since it did not limit the states they were free to ratify it withotu changing their state constitution first.
You can read the excerpts from the original state constitutions at http://www.conservapedia.com/Original_State_Constitutions
Here is a list of the original colonies with the date each ratified the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment followed by excerpts on religion from their state constitution or charter.
The list strongly proves the 1st Amendment was meant to limit Congress ( the federal government) from imposing national religion on the states, while allowing the states to establish the religion of its people.
The first amendment reads:
Its about the states telling “Congress” what it cannot do.
This list was compiled from three main resources:
Religion in the Original 13 Colonies
Ratification Dates and Votes – The U.S. Constituion
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments
State Constitutions when US Constitution Was Ratified