🚀 go-pugleaf

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 2, 12:40 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> > On Nov 1, 5:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

>> ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
>> court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
>> Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
>> Constitution, which the court's members did not write.
>
> Laugh all you want, but the In re Marriage Cases decision was far
> from clear and unanimous. One's opinion of  the judges upholding
> the Prop. 22  litigation would certainly depend on which side of the
> gay marriage issue one finds himself on.

No, it is singularly stupid to call a rather conservative court an
"activist court" just because you don't like one decision. Did you
even bother to read the decision?

>> Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
>> would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
>> 22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
>> tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
>> to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
>> their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
>> than the processing fees for getting a license).
>
> How much are Warren Jeffs' marriages worth? Marriage certificates
> issued in violation of the state law (Section 300, California Family
> Code) aren't even worth the paper they're written on. Definition of
> marriage is the prerogative of individual states. 

You mean the Warren Jeff from Utah who was prosecuted for polygamy?
We were talking about legal marriages.  Now, what do you think such a
marriage is worth?

> Do you seriously believe the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider
> this issue?  If the Prop. 8 does pass there is no doubt the gay
> lobby will take its cause to the federal courts. Regarding refunds
> for the marriage license fees? Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of
> San Francisco should have more than enougn resources to cover those

Are you that dense?  The value of a marriage may be much higher than
the value of the license fee, just as the value of a patent can be
very much higher than the fee you pay to get one.  And the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. constitution is relevant: court decision, pushed
by conservative business interests, are such that one must be
compensated not only for a government "taking" of tangible property,
but also of contracts, licenses, franchises, etc.  If existing,
legally performed marriages are invalidated, there could well be law
suits demanding just compensation.

Now, why don't we answer the question of what a marriage is worth
empirically: find out how much you'd have to pay to get a typical
newly married guy's marriage anulled - i.e., what you'd have to pay
him to get him to do it, with (of course) no chance of remarrying his
wife.  It's certainly worth more than the license fee given the effort
people go to in order to find someone to marry.