Open thread for Prop 8 hearing

other places to listen/watch

http://www.cbs5.com

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/index

---

by: kimoco @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:55:49 AM CST

The matter is submitted. All rise.

My head is reeling...oh please.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:14:06 PM CST

the hearings are over

But you can continue chatting:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:15:54 PM CST

Jerry Brown was Tweeting the hearing

http://twitter.com/JerryBrown2010

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:20:45 PM CST

I don't know what to think

It did seem they'd keep the 18,000 marriages, but I don't want to be one of the few married gay couples in CA. I want all of us to have that option.

I'll just be chewing my fingernails and waiting.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:24:34 PM CST

Me too ......

feel like I might develop an ulcer before this is over!

---

by: exfundie @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:30:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, that was depressing.

The people representing equality and justice all looked like hobos while the ones representing evil and tyranny looked better than the justices themselves.

Was there no lawyer available anywhere in the world to represent us who could have gone before this court looking and sounding like they belonged there?

I'm not disparaging the intelligence, the goodness, the hard work or the strength of the arguments of the lawyers for our side.  That doesn't change the fact that they stacked the deck against themselves simply by not coming across well.  It matters how you look, it matters how you speak, it matters how you play the game.

I think it's clear that the existing marriages will stand but so will Prop 8.  Even though Prop 8 is clearly un-Constitutional, the justices will play politics -- and play it poorly -- in the end.  I hope I'm wrong.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:39:59 PM CST

The one silver

lining (besides the 18,000 marriages that I am confident will remain valid) is that the justices more or less said the 52% of California were bigots and that they passed an unjust law.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:46:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's definitely good, but...

Until the last married LGBT person dies, we're supposed to have a state where all straight people who want to can get married, no LGBT people unlucky enough to have the opportunity to get married post-Prop 8 can get married, but 36,000 LGBT people who happened to be in the right place in their lives at the right time are married?

Are those LGBT marriages really going to be socially and legally respected by everybody?  Of course not.  We'll have non-stop problems for decades to come, or until we have permanent marriage equality.  Three classes of citizens cannot work.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:54:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I know, and that thought is SO depressing

I want to fu*k some shit up. Seriously.

But, we have our own fight ahead of us in my neck of the woods. But talk about the blowback, if they decide to holp up Prop 8 it's blowing back here to Illinois.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:57:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm really happy for the news out of IL!

I think that no matter which way the court decides, it'll rekindle the fires here in WA.  If prop 8 stands, we'll be even more furious and demand our rights even more ferociously.  If prop 8 is dumped, we'll be so fired up by a just decision that there'll be no stopping us.  If prop 8 is upheld but the court mandates domestic partnerships for all, we'll be so thrilled to see the heteros finally experiencing our pain that will laugh our dp bill all the way to the governor's desk.  it's win-win-win up here.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:23:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps Not...

since the equal protection clause - which was the basis of the May decision - still stands, and the May decision still has some sway. If the 18K marriages still stand, that will divide the LGBT community into two groups, with a "separate but equal" status for both, which has long since been recognised as inherently discriminatory. Likewise LGBTs who don't have access to pre-prop-8 marriage would have a separate but equal status with straights, since separate-but-equal isn't permitted under the equal protection clause: the constitution now contradicts itself. This remains true irrespective of whether or not the 18K marriages are upheld.

There are (IMO) four possible resolutions to this: 1) eliminate the equal protection clause (ain't gonna happen) 2) rescind prop. 8 (unlikely except at the ballot box) or 3) demote ALL California marriages - both straight and gay - to Civil Union status, or 4) abolish marriage altogether (yeah, right, and I've just seen a flock of porcine-avians). Options 2 and 3 are the only realistic ones, and regarding option 3, I don't know if the Courts can do this themselves, but if not they can certainly order the Legislature to do so. Of course the fundies won't be very happy, but the only way of re-legalising marriage would be to rescind proposition 8.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:02:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're right on all counts.

I was amazed at how much time was devoted to the discussion of actually re-defining/eliminating marriage and who would be able to do it.  I'm completely against this for a few reasons, beginning with the fact that the only reason to re-define marriage is to appease religious bigots.  Marriage is perfectly fine the way it is, except for it not having equal access by all citizens.

I'd be stupefied if we actually went down the road of totally overhauling marriage rather than just recognizing that everyone is equal.  But I never would have thought the Court would vote in favor of mob rule, either, so it's entirely possible that that's where we're headed.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:12:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Number 3 - best option

The Court can not change marriage, this would be legislating from the bench.  They can however direct the Legislature to correct the conflict of marriage laws with the equal protection clause.

Any existing marriage's won't be converted to "civil unions".  That's equitable because going forward both gay and straight couples would be limited to civil unions.

Civil unions for EVERYONE would put the religulous right up in arms.  Hopefully faced with sharing marriage with LGBT or not having marriage at all they would decide to play nice and share.

I would hope that if the Court does direct the Legislature to find a new name for marriage, that they also stop marriages until that is accomplished.  It will put pressure on the pro-Prop. 8 people for a quick resolution and their support to repeal Prop. 8 in 2010.

---

by: Guy in SF @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:52:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But marriage is not religion's to share.

Religions don't issue marriage licenses, they don't enforce marriage licenses, they don't oversee divorces.  Nothing.  Nada.  Not any step of the way.

You don't need a religious officiate for your wedding.  A religious wedding to celebrate your marriage is just an option, not a requirement.  And not all religions -- and not even all churches, temples, etc. within each religion -- oppose marriage equality.

However, I do agree it would be fun to take this ball away from the crazy bigots forever, as long as everyone was equal in the end.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:40:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really?

"They can however direct the Legislature to correct the conflict of marriage laws with the equal protection clause."

I think that they can find the amendment, which is part of the constitution, to be in conflict w equal protection and therefore...whatever happens when the constitution is amended to conflict with itself.

Obviously that's the real subject of today's hearings--what do we do when the voters in their infinite wisdom pass an amendment that breaks the essential promises of the constitution itself?--but it wasn't clear to me from the questions or answers that 'tell the Assembly to make X statute comply with the constitution' was an option.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:08:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well

They can't. That's why Kennard kept harping on that point; remember she kept saying how "we have a new/different constitution" (or something to that effect)? This was not a law passed but an amendment/revision. It is different.

The court will then read prop 8 as an exception (or could dump all marriages altogether - though I think that is very unlikely if you consider the phrasing of prop 8).

---

by: avocado @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 20:24:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I lost the feed just then

which is why I was curious about what was exchanged after the 'academics imply that..' opener.

Thx.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 21:23:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it'll be option 3, which would mean a Pyrrhic victory for Yes on H8...

The CA Supremes will probably vote to abolish marriage and replace it with civil unions, while upholding Prop 8, which as i said would be a Pyrrhic victory for the Yes people. Which, in delicious irony, would send the Yes on 8 people back to the ballot box to rescind Prop 8. I highly think that would happen.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:22:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think they have the power for that.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:50:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, but...

they do have the power to order the Legislature to do it - they can force their hand, so to speak.

This is very similar to what the ZA Supreme Court did in legalising marriage equality: the ZASC ordered the ZA government to either legalise civil unions by a certain date, or marriage equality would be granted; granting marriage equality wouldn't require a change in the law, but legalising civil unions would so the ZASC couldn't legalise them by itself - only the ZA gov could do that. So Bloemfontein chose to give Cape Town a chance to choose between either full marriage equality or straight marriage & gay civil unions.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:17:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I mean

Can California effectively abolish marriage or wouldn't all (hetero) out-of-state marriage still be legal?

And as I already wrote: It would be at least a partial victory for the religious right as the state would decide that they own marriage. And they would be able to use it: "The Gays abolished your marriage."

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:41:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If California chose to abolish marriage it would have two main effects.

(this is all working in theory, of course)

Firstly, California marriages would no longer exist, meaning that all Californian marriage certificates would be null and void. Couples could find they have to get married again in another state/country to have their marriage recognised in that state/country or any other. This would place gay couples at an advantage since Californian domestic partnerships are recognised by many other states and countries as civil unions (CUs) registered partnerships, marriage, etc., and these would not be affected; in other words this would disproportionately affect straight couples in the same way that marriage inequality disproportionately affects same-sex couples at present.

Secondly, it would mean that no marriage-related rights would be provided by California to persons visiting the state or living there, irrespective of the state/country of origin of the marriage certificate. In addition, Obama's intention is to provide federal marriage/CU-related rights to both marriages and CUs in US states that recognise one or both, thereby keeping the decision over marriage equality with the states; if this happens then residents of and visitors to California would have no federal marriage/CU-related rights, since there would be no marriages or CUs for the federal government to recognise.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 19:15:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Only going forward

If the CSC directed the Legislature to replace marriage with civil unions as the secular institution it would only apply going forward once approved.  Any existing marriages would remain in tact.  Any future legislation covering civil unions would also have to include marriage.  Keep in mind if Prop. 8 is upheld, and marriage replaced with civil unions, constitutionally California would still recognize opposite-sex marriages preformed elsewhere.

If the above comes about, your second point is the strongest reason to compel the Yes on 8 supporters to overturn Prop. 8, ASAP,

---

by: Guy in SF @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 21:23:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I didn't think Minter or Stewart were dressed badly.

The guy from Brown's office looked a little schleppy, in addition to not being persuasive. I was also watching on a 5-inch screen, and only saw about five minutes of Minter, all of Stewart (first time, not rebuttal), maybe half of the AG guy while I was getting ready to go, and five minutes of Starr before I had to go somewhere.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 21:06:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I will continue to hold out hope

but it looks like Prop 8 is not going anywhere. So, this means we have to win this at the ballot box. Yeah, no one should have the right to decide how we live our lives but that is where we are. Let's remember that 8 passed with a much smaller margin than the last time around. We have to make the case to the people. Again.  

---

by: DilworthDem @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:54:20 PM CST

I agree

My biggest concern - without indulging in a lengthy rant- is the ineptitude and disorganization of Equality California. Having lost the first time around, the officers should have been replaced.  


"Neither Lifestyle nor Agenda"

http://tips-q.com

---

by: davidhart @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 15:43:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But we won't be able to...

The ONLY way we will be able to gain equality is through the courts. PERIOD. The minority of straights who passed Prop H8 will NOT VOTE with us on this issue. It's either the courts or directly to Pres. Obama.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:17:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My port mortem.... for what it is worth. Lawyers??? Please?

Posted to G-A-Y and want it down as first impression.

So, since they already have their opionions written, and none of this mattered. I think they will uphold the marriages to November 5. ... and validate Prop 8.
So, how a minority can get rights back that are taken away I have no clue. Stewart was great and should have had all our sides time. JBrown sent substitute, who was not very good. Starr was the only one 'comfortable' in front of the court, but he was not persuasive.
Chief Justice George wants the whole Amendment process in CA changed. Yesterday preferably.
Posted by: LOrion | 03/05/2009 at 03:42 PM

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 15:40:56 PM CST

why so sad?

To me it was clear WERDEGAR, CORRIGAN and MORENO are with us. KENNARD who was with us on the marriage cases is NOT with us on this question but  GEORGE and even BAXTER might agree to throw out marriages for everyone (although I doubt they would really do that)

Ahh, well we'll find out within 90 days


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 15:42:43 PM CST

Agree

George, Chin and Baxter were the hardest to read.  But, Chin's questioning lead me to believe he was inclined to change the name "marriage" to something else, applicable to everyone.

---

by: Guy in SF @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:56:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That would be a terrible defeat for the secular and the LBGT movement

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:54:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Very disturbing

It was so surreal to hear the Justices intellectually toying with the idea of stripping other people of rights and erasing their family structures. It was the utter banality of evil to see them so self-righteous like the Pharisees determining who deserves to live and die. I just wish there was some way the attorneys could have turned the tables on them, embarrassed them, and shamed them by threatening to take away the Justices rights, marriages, and liberties.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 15:48:33 PM CST

Yes, that's it.

That's what I was feeling, too.  How dare they?  As if it meant nothing.

Show some respect when you're talking about destroying people's lives.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 15:55:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If it is upheld

we need to get an initiative in California to change things so that all constitutional amendments require legislative approval. That way when we finally win there, this won't happen again.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:06:20 PM CST

but not until AFTER we repeal prop 8!

no sens setting the bar higher before we do what needs doing.

is it just me, or is the thought of CUs for all delicious especially because that would force christers to work and vote in common cause with we filthy perverts? ;D

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:30:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Won't we need legislative approval for that anyway?

It's part of the constitution now. Of course, we already know the California legislator is on our side so we're wouldn't be raising the bar that much higher.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:50:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm still up for

a separate Constitutional amendment to specifically repeal each and every CA Supreme Court decision since we've been a state.  Really -- if the SC wants do declare their decisions worthless in the face of a 50%+1 vote, why shouldn't we help the process along?

---

by: M @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 23:41:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If the amendment stands

And a bare majority can carve out exceptions to the equal protection clause to the Constitution, I want to see a ballot initiative to remove "religion" from the list of protected classes. After all, religion is a lifestyle choice that has harmed untold millions of families and children over the years.

The Hawaii Family Forum's executive director, Dennis Arakaki, who is also the catholic hawaii diocese's designated lobbyist, said that this shouldn't be an "us vs. them" issue. Free clue for you, asshole: This wasn't an issue until you and yours made it so by sticking your filthy religion into other people's civil rights.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:13:41 PM CST

Won't happen

Freedom of religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

---

by: Guy in SF @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:00:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Except for the fact

That the mormon "church" should loose tax exemption status and be required to file as a PAC.

---

by: ggw59 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:12:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

actually

you could make a case that there is a difference between "freedom of religion" and government protection of religion.

These are two different things. Constitution prevents establishment of government religion or the ability of the government to interfere in religion. It does not guarantee the establishment of a protected class for religions.

Also that "freedom" does not guarantee that religions are 100% of government interference. I.e. for example; if my religion has human or animal sacrifice as an essential element of my beliefs, the government can step in. (or the stock piling of illegal weapons, abuse of children, etc).      

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 22:46:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I could be wrong but

didn't the Founding Fathers think freedom FROM religion was just as important?

Dena

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" (or non) is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 00:12:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That was the reason...

for freedom OF religion - the long history of the British empire telling its subjects which faiths they could and could not follow, which was itself rooted in the European religious wars (AKA the reformation) of the 15th to 17th centuries. The Constitution was intended to prevent exactly the kind of religiously-inspired persecution that is now actually happening.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 05:31:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

SING OUT LOUISE!

TAX THE CHURCH !

TAX THE CHURCH!

TAX THE FUCKING CHURCH!!!!!!!

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 20:19:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice photo..... pretty day.. it was going to rain.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:13:47 PM CST

I couldn't listen to much

I was at work and only caught short bits in between meetings while it played in the background. If anyone who watched the whole thing wants to do an analysis -- or point to a good one -- please write a diary with details or leave links in the comments.

Also, there are two Prop 8 live blog diaries on Daily Kos to skim through.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:14:57 PM CST

Pam, Thank You

for all that you do!

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:21:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think Keori...

is intending to do an analysis of some form or other, hopefully by the weekend.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:35:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh lord

Don't make more work for me! My MIL is here and we want to hang out! ;P

My analysis to be posted by the weekend is on the multilayered issue of racism, misogyny, religion, poverty, and insulation unique to local Hawaiian culture that was exploited by the Catholic diocese in opposition to our civil unions bill.

My poor little legal scholar brain is NOT UP to another go-round of California con law. Especially because I haven't lived there since 1999.

But I appreciate the vote of confidence you have in my abilities to provide coherent legal analysis. Thanks, Tavdy. **HUGS**  

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:13:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You have only yourself to blame...

after your live-blogging of the HI Senate hearing the other day ;-)

Have a good time with the MIL!

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:27:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Autumn, I had no idea Shannon is trans.

I think it's good to know, for the reasons you mentioned.  Thx!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:33:33 PM CST

Ditto! (sorry to sound like a Limbauvian)

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:48:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Double ditto!

Bobbleheads R Us! There's a freaking clearance bin FULL of us!

Seriously, very good to know. He did a wonderful job.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:30:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think I'm about to give him the best complement he could ask for...

I genuinely hadn't a clue he was a transman! It does explain a little about why I found him hot though.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:46:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Regardless . . .

He made one of the most comprehensive arguments today.

Kudos to Minter.

---

by: ggw59 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 19:00:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Found a picture of him on the NCLR website

I love his smile.

What a fantastic person to have on our side.

Here's a great article about Mr. Minter, his work, and his thoughts on growing up trans in Texas.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 21:23:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks all.

I added the note about Shannon Minter to this diary because he's a really wonderful guy, working for the LGBT community issue of marriage equality -- especially those of us who live in California.

Next time you hear a gay or lesbian person state that that trans people shouldn't be included in a gay civil rights movement, remind them about how Shannon Minter, Kelly Moyer, Danielle Askini, and couple "Missy Luber and Connor Green worked for marriage equality here in California as an LGBT community issue.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 00:10:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm reminded of a Monty Python sketch

When someone asks why the T should be in GLBT - after all, what have Transpeople ever done for us?

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Exactly.

It works both ways too. Let's not forget the sterling work Lambda Legal has done for Trans people. That's just one example, there's thousands.

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 00:41:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is Shannon's SECOND time in front of the Cali Supremes....

Lest we not forget that Mr. Minter was the lead attorney who argued successfully in front of the very same court to allow same-sex marriage in the first place.  

---

by: goddesspdx @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:14:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Could not agree more.

We are all best when all work for all the issues of our broader community.

Thanks for you comment Zoe. It's not only your comments that I usually agree with, but I'm certanily glad as well to count you as a friend, for sure, for sure.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:54:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

is it just me,

or does it seem like the justices gave a painstakingly long amount of time for that serpent ken starr to talk? I noticed that he did a lot off ass-kissing and sing-song talking to the judges and was trying to play them into his hands with illogical statements and assertiveness. I also noticed that justice Kennard was particularly brutal in tone towards Ms. Stewart in her final argumentation. That kind of threw me off as if she was scorning our whole community for being our community and daring ourselves to live freely and equally.

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 20:53:32 PM CST

half the time

went to their side, half to ours.  but it's true that they seemed deferential to starr and interrupted him less frequently.  but we won't really know what, if anything, that meant until the decision comes down.  

although they interrupted our people a lot, it seemed to me that they often cut off what they thought were ends of thoughts that they knew the outcome of.  for example, if i started saying "we, the people of the united states...", you could cut me off there because you don't really need me to finish the thought.  i see no problem in that, since time was limited.  the fact that they ran out of questions for starr and didn't need to cut him off might mean that they didn't need his justifications because they had already slaughtered them with the help of the answers the plaintiff's lawyers had just provided.  but we just won't know until the decision comes out and can compare it to the questioning.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 21:11:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah, but it seemed

to that Starr overplayed his hand, overconfidence perhaps. The Justices did ask him some very tough questions.

I don't envy their position. It is very obvious that all of the judges think Proposition 8 is unjust. But it's the law. So the question is how do they balance the two? From their point of view, I don't think that you can.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 22:10:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's also possible...

that they were more aggressive towards the pro-equality Counsels because they were already leaning towards our side and wanted to really test the arguments fully, while they weren't so concerned with Starr's arguments having already dismissed many of them both before the hearing and during it with the help of the plaintiffs' lawyers, as you mentioned. In other words, Starr became a mere formality and an opportunity to relax and mull things over, so he wasn't cross-examined anywhere near as intensely: his arguments weren't the interesting or critical ones.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 05:39:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

is it just me,

or does it seem like the justices gave a painstakingly long amount of time for that serpent ken starr to talk? I noticed that he did a lot off ass-kissing and sing-song talking to the judges and was trying to play them into his hands with illogical statements and assertiveness. I also noticed that justice Kennard was particularly brutal in tone towards Ms. Stewart in her final argumentation. That kind of threw me off as if she was scorning our whole community for being our community and daring ourselves to live freely and equally.

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 20:53:33 PM CST

Clown lawyer

I thought that Minter and Stewart did well (especially Stewart at the very end). I think that Brown's flunkie did crappy though. He seemed to not have a grasp on what he was supposed to be talking about.

Here's a quote from an online article from one of the justices:

"You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution," said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. "You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California."

Unfortunately this was said to that clown-lawyer who was in over his head. He didn't respond well to this at all. I feel that he should've pointed out that all rights have limits to them, and it's the court's role to find out where that line is. So, while the CA initiative process is less than ideal (as George pointed out) it is set up to work in some capacity. The initiative power is not limitless as Starr seems to indicate. How can any of the justices agree with that? If the amendment is too extreme (as is the case in Prop 8) then it is indeed the role of the Court to say that either it's a revision or that it's just unconstitutional (meaning that it's inconsistent with the rest of the constitution).

---

by: JS327 @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 23:21:17 PM CST

The Oral Arguments

were just courtroom theatrics at their best.  The justices are not going to rule on what was said or not said during oral arguments.  They rule primarily on what is in the legal briefs.  Oral arguments can sometimes sway their already made up decisions, but that is not always the case.  Their decisions are already made up long before the oral arguments are even presented.  

---

by: Deelishn07 @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:23:33 AM CST