On 12/12/2012 9:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
>
You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the 
people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their 
rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in 
favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my 
faith constitute harms."

> 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
>
Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a 
thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been 
able to marry, and now can't. So, its not the damn state that is the 
only one with "standing". The same idiot BS is going on with these 
"right to work" laws. Are you going to honestly tell me that being paid 
poverty wages, not getting more than 30 hours (or maybe not even 20, in 
some of the worst cases), and having to take welfare to mark up the 
difference isn't "harming" anyone? So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to 
put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has 
been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you 
can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the 
state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?

Welcome to the real world, where you can ignore reality, in favor of 
claiming that no harm has happened, and therefor no "standing" exists, 
or worse, that some sort of undefinable, nebulous, "harm" is happening, 
and therefor it had to be passed, and, as such, you *still* have no 
standing to appose it.

Post a reply to this message