On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:02:47 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>>
>> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
>> harmed by that law.  That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
>> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have
>> standing to appeal?  General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're
>> not harmed by Judge Walker's ruling.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
> more or less.

Well, no, they don't.  "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my 
marriage" (because that's not actually demonstrable).  It has to be 
something tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim 
for damages (or claim damages for).  For example, breaking someone's legs 
is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.

Marriage licenses aren't a zero sum game, though.  Because a gay couple 
gets married doesn't mean that one less straight couple can.  They don't 
"consume" one of a finite number of licenses available.

So actually in the Prop 8 case, one of the first things SCOTUS has done 
is asked the two opposing sides to explain why the prop 8 supporters do 
or don't have standing.  One theory I've heard is that they had standing 
to sue over the process being followed - but the process was followed, 
and Prop 8 resulted in a law that was put in place.  The referendum 
process worked.  The law put in place to implement Prop 8, however, was 
found to be unconstitutional, and only the state (not the Prop 8 
proponents) has standing to appeal the law that was implemented - and 
they chose not to.  The case should have ended there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message