Prop 8 Goes the Way of the Dodo

Well, the effect is the same (given that I said "upheld for now"), but yeah, poor wording on my part.

 

I don't know why I thought it was Mike, and not Jerry, Brown.

What I don't get is if it is doubtful that anyone having standing to appeal will request an appeal, why is the Circuit Court involved? If there is no appeal, then why would the Circuit Court consider the case? I don't understand the legal process at work here.

 

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional because it contradicted the US Constitution (equal protection). The Constitution doesn't have to have a specific section for each possible law in order to say 'something' on the issue. I'm not sure I can think of a situation where something wouldn't comply with the Constitution, yet not contradict it, either.

 

OK, but I think we are arguing semantics at this point. If the US Constitution had a part that read, "you cannot pass a law restircting gay marriage", then yes, the CA Constitution would be directly contradicting the US Constitution.

However, since the US Constitution remains silent on marriage in any form, there was no direct contradiction, but the amendment in question was certainly up for interpretation. That's the primary function of the judicial branch of the federal government - interpreting law. That this judge ruled against the CA Amendment doesn't mean that it was always apparent that this was so - interpretations of law change over time.

For example, it was unthinkable in the 1700s (and even the 1800s for that matter) that women should have the right to vote. (Incidently the 90th anniversary of Women's Suffrage in the US is today.) Up until 1920, women not having the right to vote was not seen as contradictory to the US Constitution, but it is now.

Or take the current immigration law in Arizona. If it was clearly contradicting the US Constitution, there wouldn't be so much debate as to the legality of such of law.

Again, I think we're arguing semantics here. Cases where there is room for interpretation either way typically involve laws that are not necessarily (or at least not obviously so) contradicting the Constitution. If such were the case, they'd never get on the books in the first place. I view such examples as not contradicting, but also not complying with the US Constitution. I see your point, but I view it somewhat differently.

 

That's what I was thinking as well, but I also see Aldeth's point. I guess the distinction lies in whether the non-compliance has to do with the actual intent of the proposed law, or whether it is more of a side effect.

 

I think it has to do with whether you consider the 'contradiction' to be a direct and obvious contradiction or a contradiction of someone's interpretation. Since the entire Constitution seems to be about interpretation these days (go living document!), I figured the latter.

Now, do you think this invisible elephant is more mauve or burgundy?

 

Dang it! There you go with those false dicotomies again - the elephant is obviously pink!

And Splunge pretty much has it right regarding my viewpoint. Side effects, unintended consequences, etc.