Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[Rhubarb]

I doubt the Supreme Court will accept an appeal beyond this point. By refusing a writ of Certiorari, they’ll limit the effect of this ruling to the territories within the Eighth Circuit. That leaves the rest of the states to make laws regarding the matter in their own. (Or until courts that have jurisdiction in those states hear cases against those laws) Accepting the appeal would constrain the whole of the country to whatever the Supreme Court rules - I don’t think the Justices want to open that can of worms.

 

[peduzzi89]

Melekali: You’re right, the Court doesn’t make laws, but it does decide whether they are constitutional, which is exactly what it did. That Proposition 8 was voted on by a majority is irrelevant because judges base their ruling on their own legal expertise and experience - which, of course, somewhat takes into account public opinion but still only within the bounds of what they find to be constitutional. And certainly not when public opinion constitutes the majority deciding the rights of the minority. That’s the way our country was set up - we are not a true, full democracy. Your (collectively) say comes at the voting booth, not when you decide that you don’t like a judges decision. Remember, some of the most important landmark victories for civil rights have been deemed “judicial activism” at the time when public opinion was hugely against them - way more than in this instance.

 

[Dawnia]

I doubt the Supreme Court will accept an appeal beyond this point. By refusing a writ of Certiorari, they’ll limit the effect of this ruling to the territories within the Eighth Circuit. That leaves the rest of the states to make laws regarding the matter in their own. (Or until courts that have jurisdiction in those states hear cases against those laws) Accepting the appeal would constrain the whole of the country to whatever the Supreme Court rules - I don’t think the Justices want to open that can of worms.

I assume you mean the 9th Circuit? Just the number of irregularities in the handling of the case should be enough for them to take it, if only to send it back to the district court for a do over. The case has been a complete circus since the beginning.

 

[Befink]

Welcome new participants. We should be here a while

Hi PR.

I’d offer that if you need a book or a church to tell you God is love, you don’t know God (I mean a general “you”. Not a personal attack). For example, why are so many people asking the CAF apologists about Harry Potter? Do they know God or do they just understand that there are a bunch of rules and they’re afraid about what happens if they miss one?

On the flip side, let’s say at worst that the Bible is just a history book and the Church is just a bunch of celebate men making up rules, there’s still much to learn about Jesus and morality. For example, the four gospels have slightly different stories about how the tomb was discovered to the point that they can’t all be 100% accurate. I’d say it doesn’t matter how the tomb was discovered, there was an empty tomb! That speaks volumes about what we believe as Christians.

I’d believe that everyone who walks into our church, or any church for that matter probably knows God loves them because they have their own relationship with God. After that, the concept is simple. Jesus is love in the flesh. He sets a wonderful example about how to live a life of love. We don’t need a divine stamp of authenticity from the witnesses to see that.

If I’m understanding you and others correctly, you’re saying that we need to take our entire conscience and turn it over to the Church. While that sounds great in theory, it can be very dangerous in practice. There’s potential for hate, ignorance, etc. particularly towards those who do not believe your truth. How many wars are there over religion? That may seem like ancient history but it was as recently as 2003 that George W. Bush threw out Bible verses left and right to successfully convince many Christians that it was right to attack Iraq. Gay rights is not on the same scale as war but it does concern me that most people who are against gay rights can’t explain why without their Bible (or religious institution which follows the Bible). No wonder the courts aren’t buying it.

Cheers

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I would suggest the courts don’t make the laws in this country. The Congress does. We need to petition Congress to make a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman and make another defining life as beginning at conception. Otherwise let’s have a Constitutional Convention to add these two as amendments to the Constitution.

No no no no. Liberals and progressives much prefer to amend the Constitution through the judiciary. The actually Amendment process is too length and complicated and they would actually have to get their hands dirty. Imagine if the Democrats tried to pass an amendment that made abortion or same sex marriage a right codified in the Constitution? Seriously? No, they just put in activist judges who do their dirty work for them and cannot be thrown out of office! Isn’t that awesome. That was FDRs intent with stacking the courts.

 

[PRmerger]

Welcome new participants. We should be here a while

Hi PR.

I’d offer that if you need a book or a church to tell you God is love, you don’t know God (I mean a general “you”. Not a personal attack)

Befink, the only way you know that God is love is because He has revealed this Truth.

No religion in the world, prior to Judeo-Christianity, ever conceived of the idea that a deity could love them.

So, to say that you don’t need a book or a church to tell you “God is love” is, well, not true.

How else would you know this?

 

[PRmerger]

On the flip side, let’s say at worst that the Bible is just a history book and the Church is just a bunch of celebate men making up rules, there’s still much to learn about Jesus and morality.

This would be missing the entire point of Jesus’ message, then. For Jesus did not come to be a great moral teacher. He taught, essentially, nothing new morally. Every morally sane person in ancient Israel already knew that it was good and right to turn the other cheek. They did not need Jesus to tell them this.

The entire point of Jesus’ message was that He was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world.

Not to be a moral teacher.

(Please note, I am not dismissing his moral teachings. Of course each and every word uttered by Our Lord is grace and ought to be reverently and joyfully received! The point, however, is talk of Jesus’ “morality” is superfluous and misses the entire point of Christianity.)

 

[PRmerger]

I’d believe that everyone who walks into our church, or any church for that matter probably knows God loves them because they have their own relationship with God.

Indeed. And one cannot have a relationship with God without religion. Isn’t that, after all, what religion means? (It comes from the Latin for “relationship”: * religiare)*

After that, the concept is simple. Jesus is love in the flesh. He sets a wonderful example about how to live a life of love. We don’t need a divine stamp of authenticity from the witnesses to see that.

And yet the only way you know about Jesus’ wonderful example of how to live a life of love is because the Church told you he did this.

If I’m understanding you and others correctly, you’re saying that we need to take our entire conscience and turn it over to the Church.

Not exactly, Befink.

The Church does not say we should let our conscience be our guide. What the Church proclaims is that we should let God be our guide. Truth trumps everything.

If we conform our consciences to the Truth, then we’re on the right path.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Ninth Circuit denied the appeal to an en banc court, clearing the way for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Here is the ruling and opinions.

If I were a strategist for the Prop 8 team, I would go en banc. It’s possible the outcome would be different. Even if not, it’s likely that the dissent would be even meatier with several judges contributing - giving SCOTUS more to work with in overturning it.

As to whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case, I’m not as certain. Given the narrow scope of this ruling, and consequently the lack of conflicting rulings from other circuit courts, I don’t think it’s quite as good a national issue - unless the justices want to pry it open to include issues the ruling didn’t decide, as sometimes happens. It’s also uncertain what the outcome would be. I think this issue, more than most, is one on which justices would like to see their own viewpoints prevail, and that may affect whether they vote to grant certiorari. The four conservative justices may choose not to do so because they’re not sure how Kennedy will vote on a case where his ruling from years ago was cited so heavily. On the other hand, one or more of the liberal justices may gamble for exactly that reason. And it’s possible Kennedy will want a chance to correct what he may see as misuse or misunderstanding of his past ruling.

I was right that the Prop 8 team appealed to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, but that appeal was denied. I still hold to my view that this is to the detriment of the Prop 8 team in its appeal to the US Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see whether SCOTUS decides to hear this case.

 

[CaptFun]

Should not Atheist Judges recuse themselves as the the religion of Atheism precludes their objectivity?

YES! But (just guessing on this “but”) their consciences aren’t as tender on that recusal thing. Again, just guessing but, on THAT side serving in such a case would be the epitome of DUTY - and recusal would be akin to desertion. Maybe Christians CAN learn something from that after all.