[iamzack]

Been watching the live bloggers today and yesterday.

I like this one the best so far.

So far I'm optimistic. The defense seems really weak (but that could be due to the blogger's bias). Hoping they'll start allowing video on youtube soon.

But maybe I am *too* optimistic. Oh, what a world.

[General Battuta]

Given legal precedent I don't see how Prop 8 can stand. Goodness knows marriage could use the help.

Crossing my fingers.

[Blue Lion]

Little side argument (or not?) from 538

"Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

[iamzack]

The judge seems like a pretty smart fellow. Honestly I don't know **** about any of the specific people involved.

But yesterday he asked a few different people their opinion on taking the state out of marriage altogether. I don't see that happening, though. That would be kinda huge... I mean, unless they just were changing the name.

[Rian]

Ted Olson’s opening statement is also worth a read, as is his article for Newsweek. Olson, interestingly enough, is apparently a pretty well-known conservative who supported Bush in Bush v. Gore.

[Mr. Vega]

But yesterday he asked a few different people their opinion on taking the state out of marriage altogether. I don't see that happening, though. That would be kinda huge... I mean, unless they just were changing the name.

If there's a state crazy enough to do that, it's California.

[iamzack]

There's already been one mention of whether overturning prop 8 will be precedence that could turn over DOMA. I think DOMA is the federal version of prop 8?

News on this trial is a bit sketchy so far. XP

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, pretty much.  Says the federal government recognizes marriages as between a man and a woman, and that states don't have to recognize same sex marriages from another state.

[iamzack]

Doesn't that go directly against the constitution? What's it called, where states have to recognize laws and stuff from other states?

[Mr. Vega]

The Full Faith and Credit clause. Except there's an easy workaround to that by simply claiming that a gay marriage license isn't the same as a hetero license, and thus is a unique law which has no equivalent in any statutes from other states.

[iamzack]

Oh. ****, dude. That's ****in retarded.

[Mr. Vega]

Maybe, but it does make enough logical (and legal) sense that it will work. And that's a lesser evil than contemplating politicians trying to neuter the FF&C clause simply because if this.

[Bobboau]

as much as I hate prop 8 this is not the right way to go about this, the reason why prop 8 passed in the first place is because a few courts decided to just go and allow gay marriages in spite of the laws, this is only going to cause a stronger backlash of the same nature that prop 8 was. I know it lacks the 'forcing the stupid people to do what I want' fun and requires horrible horrible patience, but the right way to do this is through the legislative process, useing the courts is only going to piss off and polarize the vetoing blocks who's support you need.

[Rian]

How do you think black people got civil rights? It sure as hell wasn’t by popular vote.

Edit: And if the supreme court strikes down discriminatory, unconstitutional legislation, then it’s doing exactly what it was created to do. The courts in this country were conceived as a check on legislative power, and they seem to be taking care of business.

[iamzack]

Loving vs Virginia, Brown vs Board of Education...

Unfortunately, the ONLY way to do this is through the courts.

[Bobboau]

why was prop 8 put on the ballot to begin with?
you realize this is where constitutional amendments come from right?

[Rian]

Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment. Not a national one, but it does amend the California constitution.

[Bobboau]

yeah, I know.

the civil rights movement was composed of many fronts, a lot of it was getting laws passed and getting people to change there minds,

the next step for the conservatives is a national constitutional amendment, and if you piss enough of them off they will have the fuel to enact one.

7 years ago, it looked like gay marage was on it's way in, the gay community moved too aggressively IMHO and now we have constitutional amendments popping up all over the place. every-time you make a step forward using legal force you get pushed three steps back by the rest of the country that really doesn't much care about you, you need to not piss them off.

[Galemp]

Prop 8 should never have been put up to a popular vote. The entire point of having a constitution is to prevent tyranny by the majority over the minority, and establish rights that can't be taken away. The parallel to civil rights and interracial marriage is a completely true one, down to the same organizations making the same arguments.

[iamzack]

So what exactly are you suggesting, Bobboau? That we just sit around and do nothing and wait another decade for equal rights?