DOMA vs CA Prop 8?

[RandallS]

I believe Peter is just doing his normal passive-agressive schtick against Obama and the affordable health care act with this.

A Reminder:

Attack the ideas, not the person please

[sailor]

I believe Peter is just doing his normal passive-agressive schtick against Obama and the affordable health care act with this.

I don't think passive-aggressive is the correct wording. But, yes, I was paraphrasing Obama's comments about how it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn the health care law that had been passed by a majority of the elected branch.

[mandrina]

I don't think passive-aggressive is the correct wording. But, yes, I was paraphrasing Obama's comments about how it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn the health care law that had been passed by a majority of the elected branch.

So she was right. Okay. At least we know the point that was being argued now.
So yes, Altair was absolutely correct and you were in a different discussion.

[sailor]

Oh. Silly me, thinking we were actually discussing the substance of the issue.

Well, back to substantive issues.

I'm not sure this is a good case for pro-SSM to have the court rule on. It is narrowly drawn, so that (if my reading is correct), it only affects states that allow same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage, yet not all rights and definitely not the word. Regrettably the LGBT community isn't in control on whether to appeal or not to appeal.

A down side could be that places like North Carolina would not be affected. Or worse, a 5-4 to uphold Prop 8, locking in a number of states that unlike California, have state constitutions that are hard to change. In 5 or 10 years folks will be willing and able to repeal Cal's amendment via the ballot box.

[Altair]

Well, back to substantive issues.

I'm not sure this is a good case for pro-SSM to have the court rule on. It is narrowly drawn, so that (if my reading is correct), it only affects states that allow same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage, yet not all rights and definitely not the word.

I think it's a great case, for exactly that reason. I think if the Supreme Court anytime soon were confronted with ruling on same-sex marriage broadly, they'd be hesitant to impose it on all 50 states, knowing the huge backlash that would ensue. This allows them to either refuse to take the case or affirm it on the narrow grounds the Ninth Circuit decision laid out--in which case it only applies in California and any similarly situated states that give all the benefits of marriage without the name, as you described.

BTW, with the warp speed at which opinion on this is shifting, I'd say Prop 8 could be repealed at the ballot *today*.

[sailor]

BTW, with the warp speed at which opinion on this is shifting, I'd say Prop 8 could be repealed at the ballot *today*.

Regards to shifting opinion, one wonders if it's the Bradley Effect rather than a true shift.

[mandrina]

Regards to shifting opinion, one wonders if it's the Bradley Effect rather than a true shift.

maybe, maybe not. It;s hard to tell until after the vote. On the other hand, the anti-keep winning with smaller majorities, so it probably is a just a matter of time.