Leave a Comment Sagesse
Perry: Amicus Brief in support of rehearing
March 5, 2012
Equality On Trial
SIGN UP FOR BREAKING NEWS
Connect With US
Equality Case Timeline
Equality on Trial's Case Timeline is the go-to place to find thorough, up-to-date information on the myriad of marriage equality lawsuits taking place across the US.
26 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
peterplumber | March 6, 2012 at 8:34 am
What a load of horse crap. First, they start off by stating the same old thing we have heard for years, "society’s interest in responsible procreation and childrearing provides a rational basis for preferring traditional marriage over other familial arrangements." as if allowing same sex marriage would require an end to "traditional" marriage. Pffft…
2.
peterplumber | March 6, 2012 at 8:35 am
They go on to say that since Prop 8 had qualified for the ballot before the final judgment in "Re Marriage Cases", that prop 8 is not taking away a right which existed before Prop 8 was voted upon. First, when the text of Proposition 8 qualified for the November ballot, it was existing law. Proposition 8’s text reflected the law of the State of California from Statehood until the Marriage Cases decision, and Proposition 8’s text was circulated to and approved by the voters to appear on the November ballot protectively, before the Marriage Cases decision.
The go on to say that the California Constitution allows The People of California to amend or revise the state constitution in any way they see fit. We know that is bull crap because the Federal Constitution overrules and even tho it acknowledges the fact that states have the right to self govern, their individual state constitutions have to be in compliance with the Federal Constitution.
3.
peterplumber | March 6, 2012 at 8:35 am
They summarize by saying that the Plaintiffs in Perry must provide proof that the "traditional" marriage procreation and childrearing rationale is false and that "Plaintiffs never will be able to negative the value of traditional husband-wife families for childrearing, Plaintiffs cannot prevail when the data required by their theory of the case do not exist."
Same old story, same old song & dance.
4.
Kathleen | March 6, 2012 at 9:28 am
The email from the court in Perry is notice of a formality – approval of SF's request to file its amended response. The entirely of the order is the text in the email.
5.
Bob | March 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm
So apparently "The People" can do anything, oppress anyone, and there is no recourse. Because "procreation" trumps everything.
That's my (untrained) take-away from this brief.
6.
Kate | March 6, 2012 at 12:15 pm
And since "procreation" is the only thing that makes breeders different from us, that's all they can possibly use to supposedly cover up their animus.
7.
Steve | March 6, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Good thing then that plaintiffs have no interest in doing anything to so-called "traditional families"
8.
Jamie | March 6, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I'll take that challenge. 80 year olds get married. They can't reproduce. Case closed.
9.
Jamie | March 6, 2012 at 2:31 pm
newsflash: the animus is peeking out from under the big bright purple tarp.
10.
Bob Barnes | March 6, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Was that not proved in Griswold v. Connecticut? The contraception battles of last century sealed the deal that procreation was not a requirement of marriage.
11.
fiona64 | March 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm
"Provide proof of a negative"? Really? My high school debate coach wouldn't accept that kind of crap argument.
12.
Bob | March 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm
"Never be able to negative?" What sort of language is that? Did nobody bother to proofread the brief before submitting it? (Or did you copy it incorrectly? I'd go with the former of course)
13.
Sheryl_Carver | March 6, 2012 at 3:03 pm
To our legal folks:
Does anything in their brief appear to have any likelihood of influencing the 9th? Since IANAL, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Too many legal terms & too many references to legal points in too many cases for my brain to process. Can someone explain if there's any foundation to their claim that the timing of when Prop 8 qualified for the ballot has an impact on this case? (To the Proponents' advantage, of course.)
14.
Kate | March 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Ditto to this question.
15.
Steve | March 6, 2012 at 3:16 pm
People also thought that would end the public debate about contraception…
16.
MightyAcorn | March 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Whoops! I forgot to procreate! Now there's nothing covering up my animus!! Dangit!!
Sorry Kate–or hey, maybe I could borrow my neighbor's kid for a while…..would that help? She's three and could a better job hiding animus than the hosers that wrote this brief.
17.
MightyAcorn | March 6, 2012 at 3:34 pm
IANAL either, but I would think not. Qualifying for the ballot doesn't give a proposition any force of law that I know of, but we're starting to see this argument pop up here and there. I hope some stupid court doesn't give credence to this idea in a ruling.
It seems to me that if just qualifying for the ballot had any impact, proponents of initiatives that lost could claim their initiatives had force of law in the interim before they were rejected by voters! That would be silly!
18.
Kate | March 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Ah, but silly never stopped NOM and its ilk, my dear MightyAcorn!
19.
Diego | March 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm
I don't know what rationale the Supreme Court of CA used when decided not to invalidate the marriages that happened before the approval of Prop8, but it seems to me that their decision is a pretty solid indication that the timeline claim is not going to fly.
20.
Cat | March 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm
If there never was a right to marry for same-sex couples, how the heck did 18,000 same-sex couples get married? I really can't see how the judges would get around the fact that there was a right that existed and was exercised, and then taken away by the people. On top of that the right to marry wasn't new law invented by the CA Supreme Court, it was a decision based on the implications of *existing* law.
21.
Straight Dave | March 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Because they're full of shit, Cat. Stupidest goddamn argument ever – well, maybe not ever, but since their previous stupidest argument. The CA SC went out of their way to explain why those 18000 had to stand, because the rights they held and exercised were so significant and irreversible. Of course this brief is DOA.
Somebody must be paying these people a lot of money to write this crap, because they certainly can't be feeling a lot of professional pride in their work.
22.
Steve | March 6, 2012 at 10:21 pm
You’d think the H8ers would pull out the racist stops and say something like “gay marriage will allow illegal aliens to get citizenship” or some such unrealistic scenario.
or whip out some pseudo economically-based argument like “recognizing gay marriage would broaden insurance pools and hurt consumers etc.. etc…”
Clearly these people have some sort of mental handicap because they keep using the same debunked arguments over and over again and can’t even fathom the idea of attacking marriage equality at other avenues.
They deserve to lose simply for the fact that they can’t evolve their argument.
23.
AnonyGrl | March 7, 2012 at 10:39 am
Proponents, however, cannot PROVE the "value of traditional husband-wife families for childrearing" over that of same sex couples. And it is always encumbant upon those who assert something that they prove it, not that the people they challenge prove the negative.
The Plaintiffs clearly proved that marriage was important to them. The Proponents have offered no proof that it harms heterosexual marriage, which has been their claim in court. They cannot ask that the Plaintiffs prove it does NO harm, until they prove some actual harm exists.
Of course, I can see it going this way in court…
Cooper: WE say there is harm. Let Olson and Boies prove there is not!
Boies: Here is my proof that there is no harm. Mr. Cooper, can you show ANY harm?
Cooper: Uh, not that I can prove.
Boies: Plaintiffs take that as a no, there isn't any, and rest.
24.
chiefscribe | March 8, 2012 at 9:19 am
Didn't Justice Corrigan say something to Kenneth Starr at the 3/5/09 hearing like "If the people of California cannot trust the word of this Court on what is legal, whom should they ask?" meaning that the 18000 marriages were valid at the time so cannot be invalidated after the fact (unless the ballot initiative had met the specific requirements for retroactivity, which would have made it impossible to pass).
25.
wayne | March 8, 2012 at 11:03 am
All one need do is look to the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Jesus was not a product of Joseph……so much for procreation in marriage!
26.
Bob | March 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm
great point Wayne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that was God's example of the first holy family,,,, no penis in the vagina thingy,,,,, he created the first unique family,,
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.