Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: On the Proposition 8 litigation

By: Peter Simm

Peter Simm — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:24:46 +0000

Have hope!
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously struck down an anti-gay amendment to a state constitution, holding that it was inconsistent with the U.S. constitution. In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any municipality in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:36:55 +0000

Professor Gaudard could you expound upon your opinion for those of us whom have little legal background explaining why you feel Prop 8 could and should be overturned by the California Supreme Court? It seems there is considerable disagreement in the legal community which makes it problematic to follow. I’d be interested in hearing more of your opinion.

By: Wade@MacMorrighan.Net

Wade@MacMorrighan.Net — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:21:01 +0000

Oopps…forgot: that Yale or Harvard Prof. of History was John Boswell.

And, something I fond VERY hypocritical are those “Christians” that claim, when they vote for such anti-Gay legislation that they (allegedly) *don’t* hate gay people! Who are they trying to fool?!

By: Wade@MacMorrighan.Net

Wade@MacMorrighan.Net — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:07:32 +0000

I have never understood why our Christian religious oppressors incist on purposefully blurring the lines between marriage as “civil law”, and one based in terms of religion! What’s so hard about that? Such legislation (and its supporters) declare they are only seeking to defend the “Traditional definition of marriage”. But, whose marriage are they talking about? One woman I heard commenting about the issue stated that its what “God” wants, because the Bible says marriage is reserved only for a man and a woman. However the Bible is silent regarding any suchy claim! Also, if they were REALLY seeking to defend “Traditional Marriage”, then they should REALLY start advocating for marriage as a contractual obligation where one’s parents chose the eventual spouce for their child and paid a “bride price” to the groom’s family. Also, Harvard (or was it Yale?) Prof. of History found evidence for the early-modern Church actively solemnizing marriages between two men.

This also opens up another question: What about non-Christians and atheists? They never seem to be considered in such actions of religious oppression of a minority. Many Pagan cultures throughout antiquity allowed men to marry other men; and in many tribal societies they were highly prized as a spouce and a shaman! I, myself, am a contemporary Pagan-Witch and ordained Clergy within the state of Iowa. And, as a result, such legislation prevents religions with no religious taboos from marrying Gay people to act out their own religion! Again, this comes down to Christanity’s unability of tollerating any non-Christian views! Why can other religions that support Gays’ rights, also, not be allowed to do so? Moreover, why do so many of our Legislators (usually Republiscums, such as my own representative: Steven King) refuse to take such into consideration, and turn a blind eye to these issues? Sad, really.

By: Obama

Obama — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:15:02 +0000

Ruby-Sacks saids:”The whole amendment is only fourteen tiny words in a large document (and not a revision). Revisions to Constitutions are large changes (like adding 21 000 words) or changes that effect more than one other section of the Constitution”

Uh, really? So an amendment that that outlawed the marriages of “heterosexuals” (in just a few words), but allowed it for homosexuals would not be a “revision” of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, eh?

By: Prof. Donald Gaudard

Prof. Donald Gaudard — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:41:03 +0000

Emma Ruby-Sachs: I have a hypothetical for you. California Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech is a fundamental right (just like marriage). They have also held that gender is a suspect class (just like sexual orientation). Are you suggesting that California voters could pass an “amendment” to the Constitution that would prohibit freedom of speech to women while allowing it for men?

By: Marcia

Marcia — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:09:26 +0000

Separate but equal? I don’t think that is allowed re Brown v, Board….

By: Jiim

Jiim — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:27:34 +0000

“The whole amendment is only fourteen tiny words in a large document.”
Why would the number of words determine this?
If the Proposition had been worded just to ban Mormons.. or Lutherans from marrying, they could have used 3 or 4 words to accomplish it.

By: Trace

Trace — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:47:45 +0000

Oh Bud, I’m so waiting for Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court. I’m waiting for people to make excuses about the people that he will be appointing.

By: Bud Burgoon-Clark

Bud Burgoon-Clark — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:24:17 +0000

WAIT FOR THE OBAMA APPOINTMENTS TO THE US SUPREME COURT!

Bud Burgoon-Clark
San Diego CA USA
2nd-class citizen, no thanks to the
Konservative Kristianist Kultist Krazies
(KKKK)