useless
Social Justice Rogue
It's easy when you frame your bigotry behind themes of "protecting marriage"
Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down
- Thread starter Left
- Start date
I'll update you!
I'm not a lawyer so this may or may not be accurate. I'll try my hardest.
Debating the legality of the defense right now. Referencing the duties of county clerk and why county clerks aren't defending prop 8. Pro prop 8 lawyers say they are representing authority of county clerks.
The pro-prop eight lawyers are not doing so well.
EDIT: Judges asking if the lawyers have the authority to appear, they say only the attorney general has the authority to represent people in this case but may delegate. Judges ask if pro prop eight lawyers don't have authority to represent.
EDIT again: Boies and olsen coming up
Boies: Clerks are only ministerial. Only attorney general and governor have authority.
Randy smith: State executive branch couldn't nullify prop 8, state didn't defend it so effectively they vetoed it?
referencing a lot of other court cases...
Boies: Nothing in california law provides constitutional standing to prop 8. They don't have standing unless they have a personal interest. No article 3 standing
Judge Hawkins: Because gov. can't veto measure but won't defend it it is approriate for proponents of measure to defend it in court.
Boies: We depend on authority of governor and state attorney
Reinhardt: Then your lucky the election came out the way it did.
Cooper: The plaintiffs seeks to take the issue out of the hands of california citizens.
Judge: Could the people of California reinstitute school segregation?!
Cooper: Society has vital interest in sexual relationship between man and woman since time immorial for reproduction purposes. Children out of wedlock directly violate societies interest.
Reinhardt: Good argument for prohibiting divorce, but what does that mean for this case?
Judge Smith: What is the rational basis for defining the word marriage?
Cooper: The name marriage is effectively the institution of marriage. It will be redefined to a genderless meaning contrary to tradition.
Judge Hawkins: Taking away lots of rights is bad, but just one is ok?
Cooper: Its not taking away rights
Hawkins: DID OR DID NOT same sex couples have the right to marry before the proposition?
Cooper: They did.
Hawkins: Flys in face of 14th.
Reinhardt: Different when taking away rights than granting them.
Hawkins: Do you have the same argument for disallowing civil unions?
Cooper: I believe my argument would be the same.
Cooper: No society has ever insisted that marriage produces children
Olson: It is nonsense that we would restrict rights from californians because children would be preoccupied with sexuality. We should also ban comic books, television, and conversation with other children. Haha.
http://prop8trialtracker.com/
I'm not a lawyer so this may or may not be accurate. I'll try my hardest.
Debating the legality of the defense right now. Referencing the duties of county clerk and why county clerks aren't defending prop 8. Pro prop 8 lawyers say they are representing authority of county clerks.
The pro-prop eight lawyers are not doing so well.
EDIT: Judges asking if the lawyers have the authority to appear, they say only the attorney general has the authority to represent people in this case but may delegate. Judges ask if pro prop eight lawyers don't have authority to represent.
EDIT again: Boies and olsen coming up
Boies: Clerks are only ministerial. Only attorney general and governor have authority.
Randy smith: State executive branch couldn't nullify prop 8, state didn't defend it so effectively they vetoed it?
referencing a lot of other court cases...
Boies: Nothing in california law provides constitutional standing to prop 8. They don't have standing unless they have a personal interest. No article 3 standing
Judge Hawkins: Because gov. can't veto measure but won't defend it it is approriate for proponents of measure to defend it in court.
Boies: We depend on authority of governor and state attorney
Reinhardt: Then your lucky the election came out the way it did.
Cooper: The plaintiffs seeks to take the issue out of the hands of california citizens.
Judge: Could the people of California reinstitute school segregation?!
Cooper: Society has vital interest in sexual relationship between man and woman since time immorial for reproduction purposes. Children out of wedlock directly violate societies interest.
Reinhardt: Good argument for prohibiting divorce, but what does that mean for this case?
Judge Smith: What is the rational basis for defining the word marriage?
Cooper: The name marriage is effectively the institution of marriage. It will be redefined to a genderless meaning contrary to tradition.
Judge Hawkins: Taking away lots of rights is bad, but just one is ok?
Cooper: Its not taking away rights
Hawkins: DID OR DID NOT same sex couples have the right to marry before the proposition?
Cooper: They did.
Hawkins: Flys in face of 14th.
Reinhardt: Different when taking away rights than granting them.
Hawkins: Do you have the same argument for disallowing civil unions?
Cooper: I believe my argument would be the same.
Cooper: No society has ever insisted that marriage produces children
Olson: It is nonsense that we would restrict rights from californians because children would be preoccupied with sexuality. We should also ban comic books, television, and conversation with other children. Haha.
http://prop8trialtracker.com/
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
Watching now 
GhostWriter16
Deity
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Cooper's squirming!
Squirming indeed. 
I liked the part where he blatantly lied about straight marriage being *the* definition of marriage throughout history. And also trying to associate marriage with procreation, when infertile straight couples can marry and gay couples can use surrogacy or artifical insemination to have children (or adopt).
Edit: So the court agrees that sexuality is immutable. Interesting.
I liked the part where he blatantly lied about straight marriage being *the* definition of marriage throughout history. And also trying to associate marriage with procreation, when infertile straight couples can marry and gay couples can use surrogacy or artifical insemination to have children (or adopt).Edit: So the court agrees that sexuality is immutable. Interesting.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Prop 8 Appeal: Constitution vs. ewww gay stuff.
GhostWriter16
Deity
You realize that statement could ironically be twisted into support for prop 8 right?
I mean, the "Eww gay stuff" could be interpreted as marriage, and the Constitution could be interpreted as not supporting gay marriage.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Uh no.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
You realize that statement could ironically be twisted into support for prop 8 right?
I mean, the "Eww gay stuff" could be interpreted as marriage, and the Constitution could be interpreted as not supporting gay marriage.
which constitution are you reading?
GhostWriter16
Deity
The US Constitution, which has no opinion on gay marriage. But I was twisting his statement as a joke. I knew based on his other posts he supported gay marriage, but the exact same post posted by someone else might be an anti-gay marriage post. It was just fun to change the post
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Aha the defence of prop 8 was wrecked!
And its over.
Cooper has a really, really poor argument. Says Gay marriage is not part of any society. Then says that marriage is for the well being of kids and producing children then goes right on to say that no society has ever had a child producing requirement for marriage.
Cooper has a really, really poor argument. Says Gay marriage is not part of any society. Then says that marriage is for the well being of kids and producing children then goes right on to say that no society has ever had a child producing requirement for marriage.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
And how do our right-wing "strict constitutionalists" square this one, I'd like to know:
People decrying a constitutionally valid court, just because in it's normal procedural work it may go against their "moral values".
People decrying a constitutionally valid court, just because in it's normal procedural work it may go against their "moral values".
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Thankfully the legality of something should not be determined by the approval of the few, some, many, or most. In fact, that's in the Supreme Court's past rulings, isn't it?
So, Prop. 8 has been struck down?
Go California! State that constantly ends and renews my faith in progressivism!
So, Prop. 8 has been struck down?
Go California! State that constantly ends and renews my faith in progressivism!
Similar threads
