Legal group seeks to compel Calif. to defend Prop 8

Millions of people, perhaps HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people, in this country, have the mistaken idea that they live in a democracy. They don't. ANOTHER failing of our educational system.

We live in a republic.

I don't think these people who want the Governator, and AG Moonbeam to defend Prop. 8 have any standing.

Oh, hell. Make'em happy and "defend" prop 8. Just do as good a job as the former defenders. Tell the judge they don't have to prove anything. Use easily-refuted notions instead of facts. And make sure to use witnesses who will do a bang-up job for the opposition.

From the article:
Theodore Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team that represented the two couples, said it is unlikely the state court would order the governor and attorney general to take action because California, like the federal government, requires its executive and judicial branches to operate independently.

"It's certainly a novel idea," Boutrous said of the Pacific Justice Institute petition. "It seems like it would raise serious separation of powers issues, among other things. We will be interested to see how it plays out."

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles professor Rick Hasen, an election law expert, agreed the petition was a long-shot. He called the institute's arguments "very thin."

"We expect the attorney general to exercise discretion and not to defend a law that the attorney believes is unconstitutional," Hasen said. "What this is really about, and becomes clear from the petition, is the desire to get the AG to file a notice of appeal, which will solve any potential standing problem in the Ninth Circuit case."
http://www.klewtv.com/news/national/101932688...

I guess the proponents know they have no legitimate chance at winning the standing argument and it appears neither does this action!!!

It stated, "To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Pacific Legal Institute Brad Dacus said Tuesday." Isn't that what just happened in Hawaii? Civil Unions were ok'd right up to the governor, who, in her [ahem] infinite wisdom vetoed it because even though previously she said she was ok with CU, flip-flopped and said that CUs were too much like marriage? Like the former mgr at the community I used to live in, when confronted with a neighbor who consistently let her dogs run loose, said, "There's nothing I can do about it...I'm only the manager!" Well, the governor in HI governed against us in her state and the governor in CA refused to assist in advancing the discriminatory Prop 8 in his state. He IS doing his job just like the one in HI did hers. Time for them to give up and just go into the corner and pray or pick their nose or something useful and forget about enforcing a law that was found unconstitutional and DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR MARRIAGES AT ALL.

They could not get credible testimony from those who supported them. Now they are going to try to get it from those who opposed them from day one. Who lifted the hatch on the bobby hatch?

Again from the article:
Brown has said both in legal filings and public statements that he has sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions and therefore can not defend Proposition 8 because he thinks it is an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights.

"The attorney general does not believe that he can be forced to prosecute an appeal of a decision with which he agrees," Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac said Tuesday.
http://www.klewtv.com/news/national/101932688...

All I've got to say is Good Luck trying to force the Governor and the AG to defend something they know is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.......and should they be forced.......I predicate that the 9th Circuit will decide in upholding Judge Walker's decision and leaving Prop 8 tossed in the trash heap!!!!

From the articel:

"The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino..."

Nuff said.

Religion trying to dictate law...again.

It didn't work with women's rights, black civil rights or interracial marriage, and it won't work here either.

I agree with Flint above. They need to go pick their nose or something constructive...lol

Wow, they are becoming desperate to stop marriage equality in CA by 2012.. I believe that they will be laugh out of court. it d be funny if the possible new chief justicce, tani ruled against them in at appeal court.. ha ha ha the new chief justice mostly likely is pro LGBT.. IT LOOKS like that..

i meant it looks like that way..

God13 wrote:

From the articel:
"The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino..."
Nuff said.
Religion trying to dictate law...again.
It didn't work with women's rights, black civil rights or interracial marriage, and it won't work here either.
I agree with Flint above. They need to go pick their nose or something constructive...lol

I agree. TOO many people are either unwilling, or unable, to separate in their minds, the concepts of religious marriage, and civil marriage.

Why don't these people work as hard to deny atheists the right to marry, since they are so insistent that it's a religious matter ?

Frank Stanton wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. TOO many people are either unwilling, or unable, to separate in their minds, the concepts of religious marriage, and civil marriage.
Why don't these people work as hard to deny atheists the right to marry, since they are so insistent that it's a religious matter ?

exellent point. i never thought of the athiest spin.

Frank Stanton wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. TOO many people are either unwilling, or unable, to separate in their minds, the concepts of religious marriage, and civil marriage.
Why don't these people work as hard to deny atheists the right to marry, since they are so insistent that it's a religious matter ?

They can't......because it's really not about religion as much as it's about 2 men or 2 women........and they can't understand that!!!!

It's like 40 years ago people were screaming about interracial marriage.......and now it's like, what's the problem......it was still about a man and a woman.......these idiots are just to pathetic and if they should be successful in making the Governor and AG defend it.......they still won't like the outcome!!!

RnL_4EVR_MARRIED wrote:

<quoted text>
They can't......because it's really not about religion as much as it's about 2 men or 2 women........and they can't understand that!!!!
It's like 40 years ago people were screaming about interracial marriage.......and now it's like, what's the problem......it was still about a man and a woman.......these idiots are just to pathetic and if they should be successful in making the Governor and AG defend it.......they still won't like the outcome!!!

I don't think they will win their case to make the Governator of AG Moonbeam defend it.

(ONLY in Cali do they elect Governors with those names !:))

God13 wrote:

From the articel:
Nuff said.
Religion trying to dictate law...again.

Actually it just the opposite. Religion predates laws.

Wow, most of these comments are "far out" man! I mean they don't make any logical sense. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not a hater. You can live with whomever you choose just don't act like marriage is a "right" for gay people. Hell, I live with 3 men & 2 dogs. It doesn't mean we have the right to all get married or our civil rights are being violated.

Kayla wrote:

Wow, most of these comments are "far out" man! I mean they don't make any logical sense. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not a hater. You can live with whomever you choose just don't act like marriage is a "right" for gay people. Hell, I live with 3 men & 2 dogs. It doesn't mean we have the right to all get married or our civil rights are being violated.

Ok, logical sense. Fine.

Please explain the logical process that you followed to conclude that marriage is between a man and a woman. Please list all the steps in the process so that we can follow your logic. Please avoid the use of logical fallacy in your argument. Please use only premises that can themselves be logically proven.

Symbolic logic would be acceptable if you don't want to do it the long way.

MrSir wrote:

Hmmmmmmm, I like the "Atheist" Argument ,Heres another , That ALL "GAY" people ( and thier supporters ) put OUR TAX DOLLARS into a ESCROW Account , Until WE get FAIR and EQUAL Rights and Protections under the "LAW"

great idea, go get your own gay island, elect your own gay leaders(take bernaki please) and just reproduce yourselfs to where you need more island.

Hmmmm.... Curious.

Are they afraid that the Pro Prop 8 crowd doesn't have standing to appeal?

true wrote:

<quoted text>
great idea, go get your own gay island, elect your own gay leaders(take bernaki please) and just reproduce yourselfs to where you need more island.

No.

But all bigots can go. Certainly you are a dying breed. Perhaps it is best if you isolate yourselves from the rest of humanity. That way, you aren't forced to actually meet people, experience real life, and learn new things.

You might be happier.

Frank Stanton wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think they will win their case to make the Governator of AG Moonbeam defend it.
(ONLY in Cali do they elect Governors with those names !:))

I agree with the comment that they most likely will not win their case......but damn if this whole thing with Pro 8 doesn't get weirder by the day!!!