no matter what you say, Jose.
Jose Solano, of the Opine Editorials, makes either the stupidest or the most disingenuous argument about the Prop 8 decision I have seen yet.
While the California Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of Proposition 8 it simultaneous violates the Constitution by stating that 18,000 same-sex "marriages" will be recognized in California. This is a bizarre maneuver that demonstrates that the court has no interest in altering its judicial activism posture. It saw clearly that it could not overturn Proposition 8 but refused to accept what the amendment actually says.
Proposition 8 clearly and unequivocally states:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
So how on earth can the Supreme Court rule that 18,000 same-sex couples have marriages that are valid and recognized in California? This is an interpretation direct from the twilight zone of Orwellian reasoning.
First of all, I'm not sure you know what Orwellian reasoning is, but this isn't it. For one thing, as the Court clearly stated in its decision:
it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.
So, according to Jose, the Court following well established legal principles is Orwellian. Seriously?
Jose makes his argument even worse with the following example:
Let's put this in perspective by a couple of examples. If the law states that you must be 18 years old to drink alcohol but then a law is passed that says everyone must be 21 years old to drink, can that possibly be interpreted to mean that an exception will be made for everyone not yet 21 without that being stipulated in the new law?
Except that what you want to do is go back and find everyone between the ages of 18 and 21 who was drinking, while it was perfectly legal for them to drink, and arrest them under the new law.
Allow me to give you an example of where the legal precedent you want set would lead. Suppose a law is passed that requires cars to get at least 50 miles to the gallon. Under our current system, you, and everyone else, would be able to keep their lower gas mileage cars, but you couldn't buy a new car that gets less than 50 mpg. Under your desired precedent, the government would be justified in seizing all the cars with lower gas mileage and forcing you to either buy a new car, or walk.
Do you really want that?
The court explained that once a contract is concluded, the parties have a vested interest in the terms of said contract.
ReplyDeleteA disinterested party can not alter the terms of that contract (period), nor can an interested party, except by due process of law.
The court made the only decision possible.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteThe adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.
You know, you really need to stop asking these people to think about what they are saying. It's just not their strong suit.
ReplyDelete"So how on earth can the Supreme Court rule that 18,000 same-sex couples have marriages that are valid and recognized in California?"
ReplyDeleteClearly, he has not read the opinion and isn't even trying to understand an outcome that he disagrees with. It's not surprising. Practically every time Jose writes a blog or comment he succeeds only in displaying his foaming homobigotry and/or his ignorance of whatever it is he happens to be pontificating on that day. It's sad.
Anti-gays over-use "Orwellian" analogies so much so that they render any comparison virtually meaningless. It's sort of like the new Godwin.
Anyway, knowing how unhappy anti-gays are about the 18,000 same-sex marriages remaining legal, I truly think that recent Prop 8 decision was actually a win for us!
ya know, lets think for just a moment about the ramifications of invalidating those marriages.
ReplyDeleteif they were invalidated, how much money would California *clearly* have to return to people who had paid for marriage certificates?
not to mention that there would be an almost airtight case against the State, and its entirely probably that the State wouldn't just have to return fees to the couples, but might (high probability might) be responsible for all the money paid for the weddings! the average wedding, iirc, costs something like $20,000. $20,000 x 18,000. that's just the national average - i think it likely that the CALIFORNIA average would be a bit higher.
so of course the CSC ruled that those marriages were legal! if nothing else, the financial repercussions dictated it! not to mention, if i got married and a year later i was told that my marriage was no longer "valid", i wouldn't sue just for my fees to be returned, or even just my fees and the cost of the wedding - i would be suing for MILLIONS to compensate for all the emotional distress!
(honestly, its all bullshit anyway. i understand *why* the court upheld prop h8, even if i think its incredibly fucked up - now there is precidence for *any* group to have it's civil liberties taken away by a majority! - but it won't stand. there will be another vote, and it will won, and all homosexuals will again be able to marry whomever they love in a valid, legal fashion. but i am saying, even if one throws out all of the *important* reasons that proph8 should have been thrown out - the ethics, the people, the lives, the children - there is still the financial argument. kinda like that anti-prop h8 YouTube video with Jack Black as Jesus, where he mentions all the money California is set to rake in once gay marriage is legal...)
(is this posting? if it posts multiple times, please remove the extras - also, i think there is a problem with the script on the page... the first time i tried to comment, the script had my computer opening and opening, over and over, the page - there were 42 IE windows if this comments page! then i tried to come and post and i kept getting an "IE cannot open this page and needs to close" type message, i got that twice, and then when i FINALLY got the page open without any weirdness, i posted and got a "page cannot be displayed", tried again, got it again... so this is my last try lol. if it doesn't work now, i'm going to email you the post :D
ReplyDeleteya know, lets think for just a moment about the ramifications of invalidating those marriages.
if they were invalidated, how much money would California *clearly* have to return to people who had paid for marriage certificates?
not to mention that there would be an almost airtight case against the State, and its entirely probably that the State wouldn't just have to return fees to the couples, but might (high probability might) be responsible for all the money paid for the weddings! the average wedding, iirc, costs something like $20,000. $20,000 x 18,000. that's just the national average - i think it likely that the CALIFORNIA average would be a bit higher.
so of course the CSC ruled that those marriages were legal! if nothing else, the financial repercussions dictated it! not to mention, if i got married and a year later i was told that my marriage was no longer "valid", i wouldn't sue just for my fees to be returned, or even just my fees and the cost of the wedding - i would be suing for MILLIONS to compensate for all the emotional distress!
(honestly, its all bullshit anyway. i understand *why* the court upheld prop h8, even if i think its incredibly fucked up - now there is precidence for *any* group to have it's civil liberties taken away by a majority! - but it won't stand. there will be another vote, and it will won, and all homosexuals will again be able to marry whomever they love in a valid, legal fashion. but i am saying, even if one throws out all of the *important* reasons that proph8 should have been thrown out - the ethics, the people, the lives, the children - there is still the financial argument. kinda like that anti-prop h8 YouTube video with Jack Black as Jesus, where he mentions all the money California is set to rake in once gay marriage is legal...)
O-o...
ReplyDeletecan you delete that second comment? i'm sorry... :(