Daily Archives: March 27, 2013

Prop 8 Argument: You Gave Us Some; We Want it All.

supcourt4_2Let it not be swept under the rug. This point which Justices Ginsburg and Alito elucidated during oral argument yesterday is important. It’s important because it suggests that if states yield benefits to gays and lesbians such as adoption, civil unions etc., that those state are now out of compliance with the 14th amendment on the issue of marriage. States that do not allow those arrangements are not. Get it? It is the slippery slope writ large. If a state gives a little it’s in a lot of trouble down the line and must give way to changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. 

This may be an obvious point to the legal set, but it’s not as well known to mere mortals. When we mere mortals suggest there’s a slippery slope, we’re right. Don’t forget it.

Frankly I don’t care with whom you shag, make a home and have a kid, but let’s be honest: this is a slippery slope. Defying biology, sociology, anthropology, not to mention religion to change the definition of marriage and then treating it as a “right” will give rise to other claims of so called “rights.” The fundamental building block of society –marriage and child rearing between one man and woman –will be denied, expanded, diluted. That’s lunacy. I thought all the libs said conservatives denied science. Science apparently takes a back seat when political issues are at stake such as same sex unions and abortion. 

Society and all of its institutions including government, schools and, yes, religious institutions will be, if not required, then pressured into accepting that which is undeniably out of the norm and passing it off as normal even though it defies science and religion. What’s next? 

Read this exchange between Solicitor Verrilli and the Justices:

GENERAL VERRILLI: But it does — of course
7 not. But it is — but the aim of this is to take it out
8 of the normal legislative process.
9 The second point is that, with respect to
10 concerns that Your Honor has raised, California has been
11 anything but cautious. It has given equal parenting
12 rights, equal adoption rights. Those rights are on the
13 books in California now, and so the interest of
14 California is — that Petitioners are articulating with
15 respect to Proposition 8, has to be measured in that
16 light.
17 JUSTICE SCALIA: Yeah, but the rest of the
18 country has been cautious.
19 GENERAL VERRILLI: And — and that’s why —
20 JUSTICE SCALIA: And we’re — and you are
21 asking us to impose this on the whole country, not just
22 California.
23 GENERAL VERRILLI: No, respectfully
24 Justice Scalia, we are not. Our position is narrower
25 than that. Our position — the position we have taken,Official – Subject to Final Review
Alderson Reporting Company
1 is about States, it applies to States that have, like
2 California and perhaps other States, that have granted
3 these rights short of marriage, but —
4 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I don’t want to — I
5 want you to get back to Justice Alito’s other points,
6 but is it the position of the United States that
7 same-sex marriage is not required throughout the
8 country?
9 GENERAL VERRILLI: We are not — we are not
10 taking the position that it is required throughout the
11 country. We think that that ought to be left open for a
12 future adjudication in other States that don’t have the
13 situation California has.
14 JUSTICE SCALIA: So your — your position is
15 only if a State allows civil unions does it become
16 unconstitutional to forbid same-sex marriage, right?
17 GENERAL VERRILLI: I — I see my red light
18 is on.
19 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, you can go on.
21 Our position is — I would just take out a
22 red pen and take the word “only” out of that sentence.
23 When that is true, then the Equal Protection Clause
24 forbids the exclusion of same-sex marriage, and it’s an
25 open question otherwise.Official – Subject


Prop 8 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Perry.transcript

Hearing for Stop Light Rail Lawsuit Re-Scheduled for April 17th

light rail couvFrom Larry Patella today:

“I have just received information that Kelso Superior Court Judge Warren has rescheduled the hearing for our Stop Light Rail Lawsuit.  The hearing is now scheduled for 1:30 pm April 17, 2013.  In an early morning discussion with our Attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, it appears that because of the State Wide impact Judge Warren’s decision will have on the Initative process, the Judges case loads, and other judicial activities Judge Warren, has decided he needs more time to digest the court briefs provided him.
    We not only appreciate Judge Warren’s thoroughness, we remain confident that the voice of the people will be heard.  
        We will use the extra time provided us to continue our efforts to restore to the people their constitutional right to Vote on issues important to them.
        That said we still need your help if “we the people” are to have a voice in how their hard earned tax dollars are spent.      
        So please, send us a check, payable to: (“Legal Defense for Stop Light Rail Initiative (Stephen Pidgeon).”
      For your information any donations you make to our Legal Defense Fund ARE CONFIDENTIAL/ANONYMOUS. 
      Remember ours is no longer a political effort, it is a legal effort and so contributions to attorney’s fees for a legal case are not made public.
      Mail your most generous contribution to: 
      Legal Defense for Stop Light Rail Initiative (Stephen Pidgeon) c/o Debbie Peterson PO Box 872204 Vancouver, WA 98687″