Judge troubled by lack of evidence from prop 8 defenders

[Engyo]

Ultimately, I think that the Court will vote in favor of California. Because otherwise the Supreme Court (if it gets that far) will be blurring the line between itself and the legislative branch, and also between the federal government and the States. It would be a nasty precedent; to not only strike down federal laws, but to disregard a States right to define marriage (it really is a State issue).

The Court didn't take that line of reasoning with Loving v. Virginia; was that a "nasty precedent" as well? I don't think that the Court has become that much more conservative in less than half a century...............

 

[Revoltingest]

shouldn't something like that nullify the proposition, since the means taken to get it put on the ballot and passed were illegal? Even if it doesn't I think it should.

Given the complexity of funding political lobbying in the media, very few ballot measures would survive such scrutiny.

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/washington/mowing_down_the-grassroots.pdf

 

[Duck]

Right, but DOMA states, "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state."

That being said, how can it be said that what California did is unconstitutional without also bringing up the fact that DOMA is? Because to say that California's actions were unconstitutional is the very same as saying that DOMA is wrong. Because then the ruling is basically saying that a state does have to treat relationships between persons of the same sex as marriage.

If it doesn't directly affect DOMA, it would certainly allow for judicial pressure to get DOMA challenged in court.

DOMA also forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, regardless of the legality in any particular state. There is currently a lawsuit initiated by the Attorney General of Massachusetts against DOMA because it (I think the argument is) violates the 14th amendment by treating same-sex couples differently under federal law. {The lawsuit might be using the 10th amendment and claim that DOMA is unconstitutional because of the enumeration of powers issue.}

 

[Smoke]

I think it will be a very interesting battle to see the outcome of.

So far as I know, DOMA is still in place. And that's a federal law. So I wonder if the judge's ruling will affect DOMA.

Not initially. It's possible that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs might not even affect California initially, if stays are issued pending appeal -- which doesn't seem unlikely. If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides to hear the case and rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the basis of the ruling is equal protection or some other constitutional basis, DOMA will be overturned. If Prop 8 were to be overturned on some procedural ground -- the LDS Church's illegal activities, for instance -- the ruling would only affect California even if it came from the Supreme Court.

 

[Smoke]

California could just ignore the Supreme Court. It's not like the Supreme Court has an enforcement body to ensure that what it says goes.

Yeah, that's what Orval Faubus thought.

Ultimately, I think that the Court will vote in favor of California. Because otherwise the Supreme Court (if it gets that far) will be blurring the line between itself and the legislative branch, and also between the federal government and the States. It would be a nasty precedent; to not only strike down federal laws, but to disregard a States right to define marriage (it really is a State issue).

There is plenty of "nasty precedent" for the Supreme Court not only to strike down federal laws but also to overturn a state's supposed right to define marriage. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be well within the proper jurisdiction of the Court.