Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Why wouldn’t Supreme Court rule on Proposition 8?

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:00 am

I am very disturbed that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, thereby allowing a lower court decision to stand.

Proposition 8 was passed in 2008 by a broad majority of Californians to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. If someone doesn’t like Proposition 8, they have the right to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to define marriage as something else, and let the people decide how they want to define it.

The Supreme Court used a lame excuse of not ruling on Proposition 8 by saying they could not rule on it because the people defending it were not authorized to do so. But the Supreme Court rules on a lot of cases that are brought before them by a lot of different people all the time, and they may or may not be defended by the state. So to say that they can’t rule on it is really saying that they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to say that the people have a right to define marriage as they did in Proposition 8.

In California couples may register as domestic partners and have many of the same rights that married people have, and there is no reason why a federal Domestic Partners Act could not be passed for the whole country. But to redefine marriage as anything other than a relationship between one man and one woman is unnecessary.

I am also concerned about future cases that may come before the Supreme Court. What if a man wants both a husband and a wife? What about three women marrying, or three men marrying? Or what if a person wants to marry the horse or the dog they love? Don’t those people have “rights,” too? So where do we draw the line?

Redefining marriage is unnecessary, and it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the people by refusing to rule on Proposition 8.

Thelma Welsbacher

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

32 comments:

  • robert maurer posted at 11:17 pm on Tue, Jul 23, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 444

    Exactly,Mr. Bellville;Thank you.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 7:56 pm on Tue, Jul 23, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    No, it is not going away. And all those states that passed a constitutional amendment similar to prop 8 will find their laws challenged under the new SCOTUS ruling.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 7:09 pm on Tue, Jul 23, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    Special rights are not the same as equal rights. It seems to me that those asking for equal rights for same sex marriage are really asking for special rights. In granting rights to SSM the law would be creating a privileged group. But to create a new privileged group would if fact create an inequality. It is paradoxical, to me. Your sister can't approve every case to satisfy every special interest. That would be unsustainable and Calpers would have to close its doors. Thanks for your comment.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 6:54 pm on Tue, Jul 23, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    No, it is not going away. And all those states that passed a constitutional amendment similar to prop 8 will find their laws challenged under the new SCOTUS ruling.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 12:48 pm on Tue, Jul 23, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 444

    Mr. Bellville; My sister works for CalPers. Does anyone need to know the frustrating,legal issues that she deals with daily? I love it when it comes to a "special interest" case, and within legal guidelines, she says "case denied",or you need to fill out the proper paperwork,which she sends you.Who is anyone to demand special rights and not equal rights as required by our constitution?

     
  • robert maurer posted at 10:59 am on Tue, Jul 23, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 444

    The supreme court reserves the right to hear any case they choose,send it back to lower courts,with or without recommendations, or not even respond, at their discretion.They hear what they want to hear,legally, and have the right to their opinions as well.Here is a novel thought being taught in collegiate socialogy classes goes like this:there is no right or wrong answer;only consequences for our decisions.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:32 am on Sun, Jul 21, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1490

    Want to end the lawsuits stop trying to ban same sex marriage clusterf^&$k. resolved.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:28 am on Sun, Jul 21, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1490

    I think that view is incorrect the lower court found prop 8 unconstitutional and overturned it SCOTUS chose not to rule on the lower court's decision leaving it intact.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:28 am on Sun, Jul 21, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    I believe a good majority of the people who voted no on prop. 8 thought this whole issue would just go away if it didn't pass. And on the other side. Those who voted yes on prop 8, a good majority of them stood their ground that they were opposed to redefining marriage. But they weren't stupid enough to believe this whole issue would just go away if it passed.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:18 am on Sun, Jul 21, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    Exactly. Well said. Also, it's not like we don't have enough frivilous lawsuits clogging up the courts. This whole issue is really quite the clusterf^&$k.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:13 am on Sun, Jul 21, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    K Lee,

    I made it quite clear males and females should be able to marry eachother whether they can have children or they don't want to have children. For centuries the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Whether they have children or can have children is none of our business Buit it is our business why two people of the same sex would want to marry knowing they cannot have children through the act of sex with eachother no matter how hard they try.Now, you might think that's unfair. Frankly I don't recall my parents or society in general saying life was always going to be fair.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:57 am on Sun, Jul 21, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    K Lee,

    I know you're a big advocate of Social Justice. However, the Founding Fathers of this country weren't. They were advocates of Liberty. Social Justice is inherent to Communism. Now, I believe even you can understand why I don't agree with your definition of equality.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 7:40 pm on Sat, Jul 20, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    GAys always had equality under the law. So what do they really want?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:45 am on Sat, Jul 20, 2013.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Thelma Welsbacher wrote "Or what if a person wants to marry the horse or the dog they love? Don’t those people have “rights,” too?"

    Dear Ms. Welsbacher: Dogs and horses are not people.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:41 am on Sat, Jul 20, 2013.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Brian Dockter wrote "But they [gays] want equality no matter the cost and affect it has on society by redefining marriage."

    Brian: I know that you have a hard time understanding why others, that differ from yourself, would want equality in the United States. Please explain why you personally believe that treating all American people equally would have such a negative effect and cost to society. What specifically would happen, Brian? Please be specific. Thank you.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:30 am on Sat, Jul 20, 2013.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Brian Dockter wrote (regarding “gays” as he puts it)…"It's wrong religiously, morally, and from a commion sense standpoint to marry someone you're only interested and only capable of having sex with for the sole purpose of pleasure. Chew on that for a while."

    Brian also wrote "As far as male and females who marry who can't or don't want to have children. It's not the same."

    Brian: Please explain, in your view, why these are not the same thing, as you suggest? I guess, in your eyes, that (God forbid) something happens to either me or Mr. Lee that we should never be allowed to remarry since neither of us would plan on getting pregnant (nor could we). And I would suggest that the sex is supposed to be pleasurable (this is obvious to most).

    In your view, at this point in my life to remarry would be… "…wrong religiously, morally, and from a commion sense standpoint to marry someone you're only interested and only capable of having sex with for the sole purpose of pleasure."

    Is this all you think marriage is about, Brian? There is a lot more to marriage than personally baring children and having sex "...for the sole purpose of pleasure". Have you ever heard of love? Why do you need to regulate the feelings, and family choices ( baring children), of individuals before they get married? And why should you be allowed to determine that one cannot marry if they are not going to have children? That’s ridiculous!

    You want to decide on children and sex within someone else’s marriage? Sorry, Brian, you live in the wrong country then, as we the people of the United States of America are to be treated equally and may pursue our own happiness… without your input on the sex life with our spouse or our decisions/ability on having children or not.

    You certainly should not be allowed to decide (discriminate) on marriages based on ones color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, marital status, disability, religious or political affiliation age or sexual orientation.

    Freedom and equality... it's worth fighting for!

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 10:05 pm on Fri, Jul 19, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    I believe the legal issues re prop 8 are more complicated than we realize. The Supreme Court did make a decision. They said the defendants of prop 8 had no legal standing. That much seems clear. However, if they had no standing before SCOTUS then they had no standing before the lower court that overturned prop 8. Which means that decision by the lower court is null and void. Which means prop 8 is, please note, is the current law in California. Prop 8 is legally part of the California constitution right now. But our governor and the AG refuse to acknowledge this and have ordered county clerks to issue same sex marriage licenses. More confusing yet, the governor has no authority over the county clerks to issue such an order. The clerks are sworn to uphold the constitution which now includes prop 8. A petition was filed with an appellate court to cease issuance of licenses until this is settled, but the appellate court declined to stop the issuance of licenses. So, the matter is still to be resolved in California courts. This morass reveals a new problem, tyranny. Our governor has greatly overstepped himself and deserves to be impeached, in my opinion. Prop 8 was passed, it is the law, and the elected officials defiantly refuse to honor the constitution they vowed to uphold. Disclaimer: I don't claim to be a lawyer and I caution readers to search out the facts for themselves.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:21 am on Fri, Jul 19, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I think I stated my point very clearly earlier. No reason to elaborate since you have succinctly proven it.

    But here's a hint...ever been having a conversation with someone and another person suddenly jumps in and starts talking about something completely unrelated, never realizing that that wasn't the topic? Think about it.

    Again, don't read them if you don't like anything I say.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:49 pm on Thu, Jul 18, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    Ms. Bobin wrote:

    Marriage is a civil contract. You can get married in a church all day long and it STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGAL, so as far as "redefining marriage" goes, you are not even in the same ball park.

    -Chuckle,

    Not until gays wanted equality did ANYONE call for "redefining marriage". It's all about equality at any cost. Reality check, Ms. Bobin. It's wrong religiously, morally,
    and from a commion sense standpoint to marry someone you're only interested and only capable of having sex with for the sole purpose of pleasure. Chew on that for a while. As far as male and females who marry who can't or don't want to have children. It's not the same.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 12:01 pm on Thu, Jul 18, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 491

    Joanne: I always read your off the wall posts, good for a laugh, perhaps you should try out for the Sunday funnies. Perhaps you might explain why you state that I just awoke, I awake early to care and feed my Labs, make coffee and read the paper. With my 174 posts, you can see I have better things to do, and then there is you along with your million or so posts that are just words on paper going no where, same as mine and all others that will be forgotten after being read. To be honest with you, which is the way I am, Rip Van Winkle happens every day around 2 PM, after an hour or so I wake refreshed and ready to go again. With all your posts I rather doubt you sleep at all, as always I will wait for your negative responds, as you are a creature of habit, and unwilling to give a thumbs up when needed. Catch your responds later, Riley wants to go swimming.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:42 am on Thu, Jul 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Don't read them then, Ed.

    Why do you always sound like you just awoke from a year-long nap and are having trouble figuring out where you are, how you got there, and what you are going to do next?

    While I take the dogs to the park, I suggest you pop another "aspirin" and get back to that nap Rip Van Winkle. You likely need it.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:39 am on Thu, Jul 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    No, I didn't skim over what you wrote. It was quite apparent that YOU do not even understand what you are talking about.

    Marriage is a civil contract. You can get married in a church all day long and it STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGAL, so as far as "redefining marriage" goes, you are not even in the same ball park.

    And FYI, ANYONE can enter into a civil union or domestic partnership, same-sex, opposite sex, or whatever. Heck, people who live together for a certain number of years want to claim they are "married" under Common Law. I don't believe THAT should be legal, but it is. Why do they get to have all the benefits of marriage without the commitment?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:44 am on Thu, Jul 18, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    Ms. Bobin,

    Rather than just skimming over my post you should have read it's entire content.
    No where in the post did I say civil unions and domestic partnerships grant gays the same rights as marriage. Now, if gays want the same rights as married opposite sex couples they should strive to have civil unions and domestic partnerships changed without redefining marriage. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? And comparing African Americans getting the same voting rights and gays wanting to redefine marriage is so off base.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 7:04 pm on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 491

    Joanne: with you views on just about everything, they are about as welcomed as Al Sharpton is at a Ku Klus Klan meeting. Evidently, sick, sick, sick is in the eye of the beholder, you. Take a break and go walk the dogs.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:51 pm on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [thumbup]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:51 pm on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [thumbup]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:03 am on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    In Brian Dockter's mind, "selfishness" is defined as expecting and receiving the rights granted by the US Constitution.

    I suppose, if you were old enough, you would have deemed that African Americans expecting to have the same voting rights, equal access, etc. to have been "selfishness," also.

    And no, if anyone is actually educated on what a "civil union," or in California, a Domestic Partnership grants - IT IS NOT the same as the rights a married couple has.

    Either get educated, or stop espousing lies. There are plenty who believe the garbage you put out there.

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 9:53 am on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    Thank you Wayne. Standing was the only issue, unfortunately it was a door opened to an unlimited amount of future abuses.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:25 am on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2823

    Yep,
    Redefining marriage is unnecessary. Cilvil Unions and Domestic Partnerships can be good alternatives for gays. They could concentrate on getting the same benefits as marriage in these two things. But they want equality no matter the cost and affect it has on society by redefining marriage. It's Selfishness to the nth degree.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:35 am on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1490

    The Supreme Court chose not to strike down a federal court decision that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Based on this decision any state attempting to ban gay marriage will find that it has no right to do so. Get over it. I don’t always agree with Supreme Court decisions i.e. citizens united, awarding bush the presidency but I do have to live with them.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:54 am on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Oh, the so-called "moral and the righteous!" And the sick, sick places they go to prove they are moral and righteous.

    Thelma - in case you didn't know, bigamy is illegal and so is bestiality.

    And obviously, a dog or a horse cannot give their consent, take vows, provide a signature, etc.

    Sick, sick, sick. And people want to call themselves the "moral" ones.

     
  • wayne peterson posted at 6:29 am on Wed, Jul 17, 2013.

    wayner Posts: 1

    The Supreme Court did not "refuse to rule " on Prop 8. In order for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of a case, there must exist a "justiciable controversy". To have that, both parties must have standing to raise the issue. This has been the rule forever. If you read the decision, you will discover a careful analysis of why the proponents of prop 8 did not have the required standing. You can bet that another case is already working its way up the appeals ladder to present the issue properly.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 10 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: California extends review of $25 billio…

Rather see something like this (or several of them) go in in the southern parts of California. A series of wave generators/solar/wind woul…

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Friend’s car was wrongfully tow…

Well that strange in two ways. Mr Ed talk with mr Schmidt about Arizona and no problem with the mr Ed until now with topic of poor child a…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Sarah Elizabeth Tygert.

article: Letter: Surprised by water bill

Mr. schmidt hit the nail on the head. It's called a drought. It would seem "god" is not providing water and we must use man-made …

More...

Posted 13 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: La Raza does support illegal im…

Kevin: I'm sorry, but from you're point of reference, it may be a while before another republican is elected president. I see no worthy c…

More...

Posted 14 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: We should reconsider using firi…

I'm a little concerned about anybody that is not opposed to war, I imagine even the Military would rather not have to go to war.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists