Perry vs. Schwarzenergger: Your Thoughts?

I dont know what to think about which way it could go.

We are going to hear he same anti freedom pro religious dictatorship illogical speeches by the anti-gay lobby, and we are going to hear the same reasoned, emotionally sound, logical, and fact supported speech by pro-gay lobbyists.

if only our goverment was governed by logic... then we wouldnt need to argue equal rights in the court room.

 

Can someone fill me in? What's going on with this? What's being decided?

 

Prop 8 is being put to trial, and it's going to be televised

 

Reason, logic, and moral decency is a hard thing to win with in these types of trials.

I am not hopeful. I would love to be, but these keeps going back and forth in california. courts side with us, voters vote against us, and we have to head back to court all over again.

even if we win, it still will be appealed.

 

I'm just scared. I don't want to think about what will happen if we lose. If we win, then I will cry tears of happiness. But what I'm really worried about is what might happen DURING the trial. I just hope security is TIGHT there.

 

Just for clarification, what happens if we win this?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15841006/Perry-v-Schwarzenegger-Complaint

This is quite an interesting thing to look at

I'm also wondering, what exactly are the defendants arguments? Or is that something that we'll have to wait for the trial to know?

 

I heard that some of the defendents are not argueing against the suit.

They are merely public officals who have to uphold the law. prop 8 is the law, regardless of that it is federally unconstiutional.

This case is about the constitutionality of prop 8 more so than anything else.

the defendents are not defendents in a criminal sense as we usually view a defendent. They are merely doing what is required of them by law, which is to uphold the law.

in the end, they will likely repeat that fact on the stand.

What we want to hear is the statements by the proponants of prop 8 who will try to defend prop 8. their so called 'expert witnesses' which if the prior court battles are any evidence, will be completely incapable of reasoned, logical, fact based statements.

 

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I already knew that it wasn't a Criminal Trial.

 

So who's Perry? I'm kinda lost, and what's Prop 8? (No I haven't had my head in a hole... It was a cave I'll have you know lol)

 

If the judge does side with the defence that prop 8 breaks the 14th ammendment of the united state's constitution which demands equal protection under the law, prop 8 would be injoined, which means it cant be enforced as it is unconstitutional.

this would only apply to california. It is not about arguing the legality of gay marriage as much as it is about arguing the unconstitutionality of any law that proports to deny gay marriage.

As for setting precedence, it would be a weak one at best. marriages are under state jurisidiction. the licenses are state and country granted, so it is not like a federal law can be passed to legalize it, as it would infringe upon the juisdiction of the state.

however, each state that has gay marriage, and protects gay marriage is one more state less in which to topple far right bullshit about how gays are ruining every aspect of soceity from the fabric of it to the econamy, like some have tried to claim.

 

If there was a Federal Amendment passed, the States would have to uphold, regardless of how they decide licensing. However, I foresee the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be amended before a gay marriage bill goes legal on a national scale. They will most likely add sexual orientation after the long list of possible discriminatory groups. That would be more ground breaking legislation in my opinion, because that wouldn't allow discrimination in adoption, jobs, and anything that has any premise with commerce(everything).

 

the lawsuit is to get the 14th ammendement upheld.

but marriage is not a federal issue. it should be, but it isnt.

for people fighting against gay marriage, they now have to challange the federal constituion,which has no clauses demoting lgbt citizens to 'second class status'

 

Emily Bazelon has a good piece on this in Slate. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about this. It seems to be that Olson and Boies want to make sure their names are mentioned in the history books, even if only as a side note if this fails. More than likely it will fail, and the judgement will only serve to give material to anti-equality campaigners in future legislative or court attempts in states in the next few years. If was then appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, there's little chance of getting 5 out of 9, and it'd be quite bad for us if any of Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg or Sotomayor were to side against the case.

Of course, I'd be delighted to be proved wrong in my pessimism. At the very least, even if it fails to show Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, if they properly tease out issues like whether it would damage male-female marriage, it could give a nice legal standing to our arguments there.

 

I think it could be used as a powerful precedence, actually. Granted, it couldn't really be used at a national or federal level, but it could still be a powerful argument at the state level for anyone else challenging similar bans.

 

Well, for that to work, it would require a complete overhaul of the marriage and marriage benifit system.

if this wins, and gay marriages are upheld by the federal constitution, it may help towards other states getting gay marriage, but as marriage is not a federal institution, it cant be decided upon by the actions of a few states. States can still refuse/postpone ammendement of their systems for a variety of reasons, and you wouldnt have much chance to stop it.