No, you are again going back to restricting a particular group. That's NOT what is happening. They are enforcing the same parking regs for everyone, everyone is allowed to park. Now some decide they don't like how parking normally works, so they should have the right to park in a different way. That's fine, but the state does not have to have some sort of strong basis for not wanting to redefine what "parking" means.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No, you are again going back to restricting a particular group. That's NOT what is happening. They are enforcing the same parking regs for everyone, everyone is allowed to park. Now some decide they don't like how parking normally works, so they should have the right to park in a different way. That's fine, but the state does not have to have some sort of strong basis for not wanting to redefine what "parking" means.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
They do have a rational basis to enforce parking in a uniform manner... it provides more parking capability.
An interesting point was made recently regarding parking in my curb breakdown where my driveway meets the street...
My son, a SDPD cop, parked his truck for a brief period to visit his grandma in the area where the curb is absent to enable egress from my driveway... He got a ticket from the wonderful parking enforcement officer... for illegal parking...
He went and argued the issue but they were relentless... pointing out that in my town parking is enabled with in so many (18 inches) of an otherwise unrestricted by painted surface (red/green/yellow etc.) curb... and where there is no adjacent curb formations... like in the dirt off the side of a road where there is no curbs.. so long as you are well clear of the road... we have areas like that still.. 🙂 and some other conditions as well...
The logic of getting a parking ticket where he was made no sense.... but they argued that all people are restricted in that way... that your parents don't mind is not the issue... what would they say if the neighbor parked there... and if you can why can't he? He lost his case.... ()🙂
Parking means the leaving of a car unattended... the stopping but being in attendance in a restricted or unrestricted area for a period of time may also constitute parking.. like at an airport... So, when a case is brought to argue the definition of parking we may find that there are other conditions that meet that test...
Last edited:
Marriage is a rite that demonstrates the romantic love of one person for another. Bigots have for centuries denied that one gay can feel love for another. It was seen as a sickness. We now know that it is not a sickness, that one gay can love another just like one straight can love another straight. The issue is whether the Supreme Court is ready to admit that the definition of marriage used for so many years incorrectly has in the name of fairness and humanity to be changed. It is all about whether the members of the court have matured enough to buck the tide of antiquated stupidity and bigotry we carry from the past.
Last edited:
LunarRay
Diamond Member
heheheheheheh
Marriage in the context of this thread is a Fundamental Right that all citizens have that are not otherwise disqualified.... (age, mental capacity and the like)
The Catholics have a Rite and Sacrament called Holy Matrimony. I'd not ask them to Perform their Rite between two Gay folks nor do they have to. But the State should have to...
We'll see what our learned Court of Appeals has to say... Then if it even is heard by SCOTUS we'll know if the State has met the Scrutiny needed to deny that Right.... ()🙂
sactoking
Diamond Member
http://news.yahoo.com/court-says-backers-defend-gay-marriage-measure-180754004.html
The CA Supreme Court issued a unanimous advisory opinion to the US 9th Circuit that the backers of Prop 8 do have standing to defend the proposition in the absence of the CA government.
The logic was that if the backers themselves did not have standing to defend a proposition the Governor/Attorney General would have de facto veto power over the proposition system.
The CASC decision is not legally binding upon the 9th in the 9th's decision to grant the prop 8 backers standing in their appeal but it would be highly unlikely that the 9th overrides the CASC's decision. This means that the 9th may well have to rule on the appeal on its merits as opposed to tossing it on procedural grounds, which sets up a potential US Supreme Court appeal as to constitutionality.
The CA Supreme Court issued a unanimous advisory opinion to the US 9th Circuit that the backers of Prop 8 do have standing to defend the proposition in the absence of the CA government.
The logic was that if the backers themselves did not have standing to defend a proposition the Governor/Attorney General would have de facto veto power over the proposition system.
The CASC decision is not legally binding upon the 9th in the 9th's decision to grant the prop 8 backers standing in their appeal but it would be highly unlikely that the 9th overrides the CASC's decision. This means that the 9th may well have to rule on the appeal on its merits as opposed to tossing it on procedural grounds, which sets up a potential US Supreme Court appeal as to constitutionality.
BurnItDwn
Lifer
Hooray for blocking civil rights! Those people do not deserve to have rights since they are gay after all!
Seriously, what could ANYBODY gain by blocking these people from marrying? It will make homophobes slightly less offended? Fvck that! I say bring on the gays. Get them all out of the closet, and lets treat them like equals.
Actually this is quite likely to end up even worse for Prop 8 supporters. I'm pretty excited. The case going before the 9th circuit must use the facts established in the original federal court case, and in that case prop 8 supporters were SLAUGHTERED. It is now highly likely that we will have a federal ruling that will strike down anti gay marriage statutes in every state under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit.
We should really be thanking the Mormons for bankrolling Prop 8, and now that this is a federal case it could very well have the hilarious consequence of a Utah Mormon based attempt to make gay marriage illegal in California may in fact force gay marriage to be legal in Utah.
Delicious irony.
That explains why lawsuits based on the FEDERAL constitution against STATE laws defining marriage as between two people of the SAME RACE failed so badly, like Loving c. Virginia.
Forget equal. They're pretty clearly 'superior' ('tops', you might say') to the bigots.
zinfamous
No Lifer
the majority voting to deny rights of the minority.
yay for Democracy!
yeah, so that is why we aren't a democracy, K? The FF understood this huge problem, which is why we were never a democracy.
What disgusting lies the bigots tell.
""We are delighted that the Supreme Court has clearly reaffirmed our right, as the official proponents of Prop 8, to defend over seven million Californians who amended their own State Constitution to restore traditional marriage," Protect Marriage General Counsel Andy Pugno said. "
They didn't 'defend' anything. 'Traditional' marriage was never at risk. Gays were.
""We are delighted that the Supreme Court has clearly reaffirmed our right, as the official proponents of Prop 8, to defend over seven million Californians who amended their own State Constitution to restore traditional marriage," Protect Marriage General Counsel Andy Pugno said. "
They didn't 'defend' anything. 'Traditional' marriage was never at risk. Gays were.
I don't usually agree with Craig but he has a few really good points on this issue.
I am no lawyer but common decency states that in order to deny someone the ability to do something they wish you must show how them doing that something harms you (or someone else). How exactly does gay marriage harm you or anyone else?
Do you think they will stop being gay or maybe be less gay if a gay couple can't enjoy the same benefits that a hetro couple can? Do you think that the "pray the gay away" tactic might work? Do you think that your wife will all of a sudden feel that her marrying you is now disgusting because some gay folk got married? What is it?
I am starting to think you are one of those that think "the gay" is contagious and if they can get married you might catch it and BAM all of a sudden you are on your knees sucking some dude off. Frankly that is about the best argument you can put forth because it hasn't been scientifically proven that "the gay" isn't contagious but I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to reasonably believe that it isn't.
Or maybe this is a case for moony and you are in fact gay and full of self hate?
I dunno, I just don't see a single microscopic way that two guys getting married harms me or anyone else, other than potentially the two dudes who willfully entered into the contract, in anyway shape or form.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
All today's Cal Supreme court decision does is give the prop 8 folks 'standing' so that they can argue the issue since Cal Atty Gen and Gov wouldn't... The 9th simply asked the State Court to give some guidance... based on State Law... Now they can hear arguments and decide if the Prop should be overturned... IMO.
Well actually all it did was give their opinion on standing under CA state law, so the 9th circuit could still rule differently on federal law. (I believe this is unlikely though) Overall this is a victory for good governance though as I don't believe the governor/attorney general should be able to have what amounts to a retroactive veto.
That is a really good point.
irishScott
Lifer
..
LunarRay
Diamond Member
I don't see a Federal issue in the finding of 'Standing' for a State issue under State law. But who knows what the 9th can dig up regarding that issue 😱.
As to the Gay Marriage issue... It remains in my thinking as a fundamental right of a suspect class... Strict Scrutiny. And, Prop 8 violates that and thereby the 14th.
The lawsuit in question here is federal, not state, that's why federal standing matters.
In this particular suit the homophobes lost so badly the first time that they didn't even need strict scrutiny. It lost on the 'rational basis' test, which basically means that the people who created the law were crazy.
Civics failure again.
A fundamental in a constitutional democracy is the legal safeguard against the absolutist of an absolute majority enacting the tyrany of the majority upon the few. Numerous legislation, ratified charters, and legal precidents trump the electorate's will and representatives whims.
Southern US communities lost the fight for legislated segregation. The equality of civil rights are fundamental in a modern, civilised state. The same goes for sexual being as for race.
Though just as upon racial and sexual equality, the USA is also tardy upon civil rights for sexual pursuasion. An historic reality is that looking past the jingistic jargon, a relative beacon for freedom in this world it typically is not.
A democratic vote to take a persons fundamental right away isn't democratic or constitutional.
Led by a Conservative Chief Judge the 9th will affirm the District Courts ruling on its merits and SCOTUS will affirm the 9th. The bans can't even meet a rational basis test, let alone intermediate, or strict scrutiny.
The best Prop 8 supporters and anti-gay rights/homophobes can hope for is SCotUS to deny cert so the 9th's decision only effects the 9th and not the entire country. I doubt they do that because they have the 5 votes to affirm.
Last edited:
The 9th really isn't going to defer to the CA Supreme Court for Federal standing either. State courts never decide federal or constitutional standing before a Federal Court. The 9th should base the issue of standing on their own circuit opinions on standing, other circuits, and SCOTUS. I am still not entirely convinced the supporters have standing for the appeal, but standing is a screwy subject that makes no sense, nor are any of the opinions consistent.
But I do think they will find standing based on the CA Supreme Court though, because they desperately want to find standing so they can affirm the lower court. The CA Supreme Court rulings gives them cover, because they can cite inconsistent at best standing opinions + the CA Supreme Courts ruling.
The 9th should have their opinion out this term(it should be near) as its been clear how they were going to rule on the merits since they heard the case. Hopefully SCotUS will pick it up shortly there after.
I also still wonder what the Prop 8 proponents have to hide, they are the ones trying to keep the district court video from being released.
Last edited:
I suspect the appeals court has a good chance to follow the CA Supreme Court opinion; if they had their minds made up, why would they have asked for the opinion.
Also, it makes some sense for this ruling to move up the chain, so that one way or another there's more consistency across the country on the issue.
waggy
No Lifer
thats just it. i don't understand it.
How is this going to harm ANYONE? its not going to spike the divroce rates (wich is already insane). its not going to turn people guy.
Also denying rights i have to others tends to piss me off. it shouldn't be done and those that back it make me shake my head.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
