Comments on: You’ll Never Guess Who’s Behind The Federal Court Challenge To Prop 8 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/27/11661 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:53:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Bearchewtoy75 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/27/11661/comment-page-1#comment-41432 Bearchewtoy75 Wed, 27 May 2009 17:48:42 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11661#comment-41432 So, does the Federal DOMA factor into this at all? So, does the Federal DOMA factor into this at all?

]]> By: occono http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/27/11661/comment-page-1#comment-41425 occono Wed, 27 May 2009 16:29:52 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11661#comment-41425 Any issue on Gay Marriage needs to get Baker V. Nelson reversed first. Lower courts can't hear a case till SCOTUS reverses its decision that it isn't a substantial Federal question. (I think you could get California's Statutory/Constitutional Amendment Ballot Initiative process invalidated though. The Constitution guarantees every American a "Republican form of Government" over their State, and one of the important ideas of constitutional republicanism is a hard-to-amend constitution, in order to protect the minority from the whims and wavers of a simple majority. Prop 8. could be used to show California's Ballot Initiatives make its Government too purely Democratic and not Republican enough, in the legal sense.) Any issue on Gay Marriage needs to get Baker V. Nelson reversed first. Lower courts can’t hear a case till SCOTUS reverses its decision that it isn’t a substantial Federal question.

(I think you could get California’s Statutory/Constitutional Amendment Ballot Initiative process invalidated though. The Constitution guarantees every American a “Republican form of Government” over their State, and one of the important ideas of constitutional republicanism is a hard-to-amend constitution, in order to protect the minority from the whims and wavers of a simple majority. Prop 8. could be used to show California’s Ballot Initiatives make its Government too purely Democratic and not Republican enough, in the legal sense.)

]]> By: Ben in Oakland http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/27/11661/comment-page-1#comment-41418 Ben in Oakland Wed, 27 May 2009 15:44:49 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11661#comment-41418 Just what I was thinking. I'm against it. Just what I was thinking. I’m against it.

]]> By: Nick Literski http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/27/11661/comment-page-1#comment-41417 Nick Literski Wed, 27 May 2009 15:31:18 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11661#comment-41417 Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, most have considered it a poor time to take marriage equality issues to the federal level. If I was an unethical attorney, and a strong social conservative, it would make sense to push the issue to the current SCOTUS, with the intended purpose of receiving their likely unfavorable ruling as precedent. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, most have considered it a poor time to take marriage equality issues to the federal level. If I was an unethical attorney, and a strong social conservative, it would make sense to push the issue to the current SCOTUS, with the intended purpose of receiving their likely unfavorable ruling as precedent.

]]> By: werdna http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/27/11661/comment-page-1#comment-41416 werdna Wed, 27 May 2009 15:25:20 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11661#comment-41416 "And all of this of course begs the question: where are Obama and the Democrats?" <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question" rel="nofollow">No it doesn't.</A> It raises the question, but doesn't beg it. Yeah, just a pet peeve of mine.... “And all of this of course begs the question: where are Obama and the Democrats?”

No it doesn’t. It raises the question, but doesn’t beg it. Yeah, just a pet peeve of mine….

]]>