Prop. 8 Court Proceedings to be Televised

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Yes, you heard it. Televised. But not by mainstream media (though they will have access to it).

The 12/31/09 news bump at 5:30pm in the middle of the hourly NPR news bump by Kelly Wilkinson for KQED Radio first mentioned the possibility:

STORY

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 -- 5:30 PM

Will Prop. 8 Trial Be Televised?
Arguments about the constitutionality of Prop. 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, could be coming to a TV or computer screen near you. The trial could become the first federal trial in western states to be televised. Also, we hear some people's hopes for the Bay Area in 2010.
You'll need to listen to the audio to catch the story.

Now, both KQED and the San Francisco Chronicle are reporting that the Prop. 8 trial will be shown on YouTube, thanks to the judge approving both audio and video coverage in the courtroom. Mainstream TV/media will undoubtedly pick this up (whether they will spin it remains to be seen). It will be time delayed, although live simulcasts to various theaters will take place throughout the area and the nation. Some locations include San Francisco, Pasadena, Portland, Seattle, and Chicago.

This will be very interesting, as the court proceedings start this coming Monday (1/11/10). Video will be available at http://www.youtube.com/usdccand.

BL.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
It will be interesting alright- and sad. I don't think I have the stomach to watch our government fail to protect the rights of minorities one more time.

Remember folks, all it takes is a vote and your rights are gone. That's what's been going on since this happened.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
"...Arguments about the constitutionality of Prop. 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage..."
"Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of Article I, to the California Constitution. The new section reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Wikipedia

Curious whether the California Courts will now hold "Court Proceedings" over every approved ballot proposition in the state's history? These proceedings mock California voters, who overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8 in November 2008. California voters have already spoken on this matter and this is settled law.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
"Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of Article I, to the California Constitution. The new section reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Wikipedia

Curious whether the California Courts will now hold "Court Proceedings" over every approved ballot proposition in the state's history? These proceedings mock California voters, who overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8 in November 2008. California voters have already spoken on this matter and this is settled law.
If the voters voted to legalize slavery, you wouldn't have a problem with the courts sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing?

If Prop 8 is unconstitutional according to California's constitution, then it needs to be overturned, even if the voters voted for it.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
If the voters voted to...
In a representative democracy, what the voters want is law. I know you progressives have a hard time with that concept but you're going to have to live with it... You can't hold court proceedings on selected valid ballot measures that were approved by the voters unless you wish to hold court proceedings on all of them...Just accept the will of the people and go on with your life; if you hate this nation do by all means leave.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
In a representative democracy, what the voters want is law. I know you progressives have a hard time with that concept but you're going to have to live with it... You can't hold court proceedings on selected valid ballot measures that were approved by the voters unless you wish to hold court proceedings on all of them...Just accept the will of the people and go on with your life; if you hate this nation do by all means leave.
So the only Constitutional right you actually give a damn about is your right to own guns?

You're the one who apparently hates the very foundation this country was founded on, maybe you should be the one to leave.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
Not what the U.S is.

If they voted for a ban on guns?
Should the Constitution be amended to ban guns, reinstitute slavery, revert the voting age to 21, the constitutionality of the provision should be unquestionable. The morality or ethics of such a provision would be the question.

Here, the process of placing the question on the ballot or the voting process could be debatable, but underlying question of gay marriage has been voted on (even if not overwhelmingly, as claimed by ITN). Repealing the amendment is a constitutional issue, not judicial.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
Not what the U.S is.
Actually it is; go and check...

From the Center for Civic Education: Representative Democracy in America
"The Center for Civic Education’s major activity in the project is Representative Democracy in America, a six-part video series on DVD to help middle and high school students understand our system of representative democracy."

These training materials were prepared due to lack of secondary school instruction on civic education (in particular, representative democracy) in America!

If they voted for a ban on guns?
Then I would abide by the law. Alexander Hamilton wasn't kidding when he said, "Here sir, the people govern." Prop. 8 is settled law. Live with it or leave.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Then I would abide by the law. Alexander Hamilton wasn't kidding when he said, "Here sir, the people govern." Prop. 8 is settled law. Live with it or leave.
But that's not how this country works. If the voters vote for a law that is unconstitutional (and in California, with enough signatures, you can get just about anything on the ballot) then it still needs to be overturned. The will of the voters does not trump the Constitution.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
But that's not how this country works. If the voters vote for a law that is unconstitutional (and in California, with enough signatures, you can get just about anything on the ballot) then it still needs to be overturned. The will of the voters does not trump the Constitution.
My point is that Prop. 8 was a legal ballot measure and it passed overwhelmingly; I think the percentage was 53-47 with 70+% of California voters. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about it! Moreover, if the Courts want to hold hearings on approved ballot measures they should hold court hearings on them all, not be selective based on vocal advocacy groups! But if you insist, show us where in the Constitution it says valid ballot measures are invalid; or, more specifically, marriage is not between a male and a female? Under California law (and most states as well), voters can bring measures to vote. That is the whole premise of democracy!!!
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
But that's not how this country works. If the voters vote for a law that is unconstitutional (and in California, with enough signatures, you can get just about anything on the ballot) then it still needs to be overturned. The will of the voters does not trump the Constitution.
And I refuse to live with it or leave. F*** that. The Constitution is there to protect the rights of all citizens. That is what this country was built on and what it stands for. EVERYONE deserves the same rights, not just the majority. That's the whole point of the US in the first place.

If InTheNet wants to live in a country where a simple majority rules, then by all means, he should leave. He hates the USA and wants to live in a theocracy anyway.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
My point is that Prop. 8 was a legal ballot measure and it passed overwhelmingly; I think the percentage was 53-47 with 70+% of California voters. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about it! Moreover, if the Courts want to hold hearings on approved ballot measures they should hold court hearings on them all, not be selective based on vocal advocacy groups! But if you insist, show us where in the Constitution it says valid ballot measures are invalid; or, more specifically, marriage is not between a male and a female? Under California law (and most states as well), voters can bring measures to vote. That is the whole premise of democracy!!!
I don't know if it's unconstitutional or not. I am not an expert on the California Constitution. I've never even been to California. That's the entire point of a court case, so people who are experts can look over the facts and make an informed decision.

Other ballot measures aren't challenged in court because it's quite obvious from the start that they are constitutional. There must be something in CA's Constitution that could possibly make this unconstitutional or else the case would've never gotten this far.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I don't know if it's unconstitutional or not. I am not an expert on the California Constitution. I've never even been to California. That's the entire point of a court case, so people who are experts can look over the facts and make an informed decision.

Other ballot measures aren't challenged in court because it's quite obvious from the start that they are constitutional. There must be something in CA's Constitution that could possibly make this unconstitutional or else the case would've never gotten this far.
Yeah- it's called voting away people's rights, which is never to happen in this country. Same sex marriage was declared a right by the California supreme court way before Prop 8. People's rights cannot be voted away. If this is upheld, the entire fabric of what this country stands for is in jeopardy.
 

xUKHCx

Administrator emeritus
Jan 15, 2006
12,045
6
The Kop
Actually it is; go and check...
CIA World Fact book

Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Now as part of that system there is the democratic vote but the over riding factor is the constitution. If the vote is held to be unconstitutional then it should be contested and rejected.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
There must be something in CA's Constitution that could possibly make this unconstitutional or else the case would've never gotten this far.
I think the voice of voters is clear; California voters don't want marriage destroyed; said another way, they reaffirmed traditional marriage so it, as an institution, is not destroyed by vocal advocacy groups pushing a radical agenda of immorality.

Given the choice between civic education groups and the CIA on a reference detailing America's government, I'll choose the civic source...

Now as part of that system there is the democratic vote but the over riding factor is the constitution. If the vote is held to be unconstitutional then it should be contested and rejected.
Then let's review EVERY ballot measure by Court action; not specific ballot measures due to radical activitists unhappy with result... Message being sent here is that a valid ballot measure, legally held and voted, is now somehow unconstitutional! That's not right in a democracy...
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
I think the voice of voters is clear; California voters don't want marriage destroyed; said another way, they reaffirmed traditional marriage so it, as an institution, is not destroyed by vocal advocacy groups pushing a radical agenda or immorality.
The voice of the voters doesn't matter if their voice is unconstitutional. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

Also, please explain how 2 gay people getting married destroys anyone else's marriage. It doesn't. It never has, it never will. It's another bull**** lie made up by Christians to force their beliefs on others.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
I think the voice of voters is clear; California voters don't want marriage destroyed; said another way, they reaffirmed traditional marriage so it, as an institution, is not destroyed by vocal advocacy groups pushing a radical agenda of immorality.

How will allowing same sex marriage harm "traditional" marriage, which, given the 50% divorce rate, has already been "harmed".
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
How will allowing same sex marriage harm "traditional" marriage, which, given the 50% divorce rate, has already been "harmed".
If the OP wishes I'll address that but I think this thread should address the specific topicality of ballot measure validity itself, rather than refight merits/demerits of Prop. #9 language... I'm not avoiding your question but I don't want to hijack thread in different direction...
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
How will allowing same sex marriage harm "traditional" marriage, which, given the 50% divorce rate, has already been "harmed".
It can only strengthen marriage, not destroy it. The more people we have in committed legal relationships, the better it is for society.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
If the OP wishes I'll address that but I think this thread should address the specific topicality of ballot measure validity itself, rather than refight merits/demerits of Prop. #9 language... I'm not avoiding your question but I don't want to hijack thread in different direction...
No, you're avoiding it. I'm sure the OP would love to know what sort of bull**** you can come up with as an answer to that question.
 

swiftaw

macrumors 603
Jan 31, 2005
6,309
20
Omaha, NE, USA
I think the point is that a majority vote on a proposition can only make the proposition a law if the proposition does not violate the constitution. The constitution is the umbrella document beneath which everything else exists. No law can exist (at the federal, state, or local level) if it violates the constitution.

For example, suppose California put a proposition on it's ballot to allow slavery in California to be legal. And suppose it was voted on and it passed. Clearly it would be challenged and the law overturned as it is clearly a violation of the 13th amendment.

I am assuming that this is what is going on here, people are challenging the legality of Prop 8. with regards to the fact that it (they claim) violates the constitution.

Again, the majority does not have the right to vote in any law they choose, only those which do not violate the constitution.