Urgent Call to Lawyers

I’ll refer to this thread also in the secular news forum, but invite responses only on this thread, should anyone care to respond.

42 groups have filed Amicus briefs to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which passed in November, but which has already suffered a legal challenge. Amicus briefs are obviously also permitted in defense of Proposition 8, but I have no idea how many of those have been submitted, nor the power of the civil arguments upholding Prop 8.

I’m concerned about the relative silence about this from the pro-Prop 8 side. The anti- side (supporting gay “marriage”) has been invigorated, however. The results of a poll conducted about a month after the November election showed that a significant percentage of previously pro- Prop 8 voters were prepared to change their vote in hindsight. This indicates a narrowly divided state, and while the courts are supposed to be above public opinion, in my experience the courts in CA are highly politicized.

I will tell you that the two major anti-prop-8 arguments will be, I have learned, (1) that eliminating a previously court-approved ‘right’ should not have been submitted to the voting public, and (2) that marriage in May of 2008 in CA was declared a “fundamental right” by that state court.

I hope that lawyers who care seriously about children and about the future will get busy and start submitting convincing amicus briefs.

Personally, I just plain dislike Prop 8 altogether. Both sides are too to the left or to the right; both sides are only in it for their own interests. Prop 8 was poorly written, simply in my opinion.

I do see what you mean, but you have to remember that children should not be used as scapegoats. I do agree that children shouldn’t be exposed to *any *type of marriage (heterosexual or not) because they are too young and it is almost irrelevant. However, I personally would not mind teaching the subject homosexuality in schools, so long as it is only during sex education (or a U.S. History class), but not as it’s own course… that just doesn’t seem fair. Teach me both sides or neither: that’s my desire.

I don’t mind gay marriage–not in the least, but I would hope that the writers of Prop 8 were a little more sensitive towards the churches who would not marry same-sex couples. There are a precious number of churches who would, more than happily, marry a same-sex couple; it is their right just as much as it is the right of another church to refuse marrying same-sex couples.

As far as overturning it goes… it may be done. The state Supreme Court is leaning left, but those are just the words of my (surprisingly conservative) AP Gov’t teacher, so I can’t necessarily claim that.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Marriage in the United States has pretty much been killed off by no-fault divorce. But homosexual marriage would simply seal the gravesite, making the term marriage simply meaningless, and the institution therefore disposable, much to the detriment of an already badly damaged society.

Same sex marriage? The End Times are around the corner.


How dose one go about using Amicus briefs on, say, Proposition 4?

For that matter, how dose one make a proposition?

I didn’t know that “Prop 4” was being legally challenged and thus subject to argumentative briefs by Friends of the Court/Argument.

A state proposition requires a certain number of signatures and a certain amount of legal electoral procedure being followed (deadlines, etc.)

Blade and Blood, your response makes no sense to me, filled as it is with contradictions. You don’t seem to know well the history of the fight in CA and just who is (or was) and is not/was not on either side. There were coalitions on both sides of the issue, not just “extreme right” and “extreme left.” Extremists will ally themselves with a number of moderate proposals. Doesn’t make the proposal itself extreme. There’s nothing extreme about defining marriage as man/woman.

However, I personally would not mind teaching the subject homosexuality in schools, so long as it is only during sex education (or a U.S. History class), but not as it’s own course… that just doesn’t seem fair. Teach me both sides or neither: that’s my desire.

Sexuality, in general, should not be taught until at least the eighth grade. The best format for the teaching of homosexuality is in an 11th or 12th grade psychology course. Introducing it in a biology or sex ed class would disrupt the entire purpose of those courses.

It’s also best to keep in mind that many parents apprehensive about whether or not to allow general sex education would most certainly decline if homosexuality were to be taught. Thus, few children would learn anything about the biological purpose of sex - not psychological - and how to do it safely.

Any biological purpose homosexual sex serves is rooted, essentially, in the psychological. What I mean by that is certain psychological hierarchies which are met by romantic and sexual relationships, including homosexual, are best explained in a psychology course, even though biological components are at work which have an impact on the psyche.

There is no biological reason, in my view, to present homosexuality in a sex education course. Explaining homosexuality amply would be too much information - complex information - for an eighth grader to comprehend.

Elizabeth, I don’t think that the Appeals courts count* amicus* briefs and rules according to how many were recieved.

42 amicus briefs with flawed legal reasoning don’t trump 1 amicus brief with solid legal reasoning.

If homosexuality is to be taught in schools, it should be in high school at 11th or 12th grade and be in an elective course such as psychology (as a manifestation of abnormal psychological development) or sociology (as a sociopathic trend)

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that homosexuality is an abnormal condition otherwise humanity would not have survived.

There is an interesting theory that homosexuality is a result of evolutionary pressure to reduce population, but few actually buy into it.

I agree, Paul. My post, being (haha) “brief” in that aspect, was misleading. I meant that (1) the 42 briefs, being as they are from a variety of sources, might collectively contain a spectrum of arguments which may be convincing versus whatever has been filed on the ‘pro’ side so far, and that (2) it may indicate a passion on one side that can carry the day. Theoretically, logical argument should carry the day in a court of law. It too frequently does not in cases of certain highly charged issues and/or highly politically charged judicial arenas. Again, in CA, politics has enormous influence over 2 areas which should be politically neutral: the courts and public education.

Hope that clarifies.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.