g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 1 The federal judge presiding over a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8,
California’s anti-marriage equality measure, has distributed to attorneys
on both sides a list of 39 questions to be addressed during closing
arguments next week. |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 2 To Plaintiffs:
1. Assume the evidence shows Proposition 8 is not in fact
rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Assume
further the evidence shows voters genuinely but without
evidence believed Proposition 8 was rationally related to a
legitimate interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the
absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the
constitutionality of Proposition 8? See Hernandez v Robles,
855 NE2d 1, 7-8 (2006) (“In the absence of conclusive
scientific evidence, the L |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 3 8. What is the relevance, if any, of data showing that state and
local governments would benefit economically if same-sex
couples were permitted to marry? Does that relevance depend
on the magnitude of the economic benefit?
9. What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against
enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs
propose?
10. Even if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined,
plaintiffs’ marriages would not be recognized under federal
law. Can the court find Propos |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 4 To Proponents:
1. Assuming a higher level of scrutiny applies to either
plaintiffs’ due process or equal protection claim, what
evidence in the record shows that Proposition 8 is
substantially related to an important government interest?
Narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?
2. Aside from the testimony of Mr Blankenhorn, what evidence in
the record supports a finding that same-sex marriage has or
could have negative social consequences? What does the
evidence show the magnitude |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 5 7. Assume the evidence shows that children do best when raised by
their married, biological mother and father. Assume further
the court concludes it is in the state’s interest to encourage
children to be raised by their married biological mother and
father where possible. What evidence if any shows that
Proposition 8 furthers this state interest?
8. Do California’s laws permitting same-sex couples to raise and
adopt children undermine any conclusion that encouraging
children to be raised by a ma |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 6 11. Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality
not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 (“But
sincerely held moral or religious views that require
acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain
aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to
discrimination.”). What evidence in the record shows that a
belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If
that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a
small but significant minority of |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 7 To Plaintiffs and Proponents:
1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims?
Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?
2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of
a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or
“arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause? See Minnesota v
Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 469 (1981); FCC v Beach
Communications, Inc, 508 US 305, 320 (1993).
3. What does the evidence show the difference to be bet |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 8 6. In order to be rooted in “our Nation's history, legal
traditions, and practices,” see Washington v Glucksberg, 521
US 702, 710 (1997), is it sufficient that a practice has
existed historically, or need there be an articulable purpose
underlying the practice?
7. If spouses are obligated to one another for mutual support and
support of dependents, and if legal spousal obligations have
no basis in the gender of the spouse, what purpose does a law
requiring that a marital partnership consist of o |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 9 10. How should the failure of the Briggs Initiative (Proposition 6
in 1978) or the LaRouche Initiative (Proposition 64 in 1986)
be viewed in determining whether gays and lesbians are
politically powerless?
11. What are the constitutional consequences if the evidence shows
that sexual orientation is immutable for men but not for
women? Must gay men and lesbians be treated identically under
the Equal Protection Clause?
12. How many opposite-sex couples have registered as domestic
partners under Ca |
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 10 狂赞，都是很有水平的问题。
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: 10. How should the failure of the Briggs Initiative (Proposition 6
: in 1978) or the LaRouche Initiative (Proposition 64 in 1986)
: be viewed in determining whether gays and lesbians are
: politically powerless?
: 11. What are the constitutional consequences if the evidence shows
: that sexual orientation is immutable for men but not for
: women? Must gay men and lesbians be treated identically under
: the Equal Protection Clause?
: 12. How many opposite-sex couples have registered as domestic
: partners under Ca
|
|
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | |
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 13 一个一个地翻吧。
假设证据表明prop8实际上并非与公众利益相关。假定更多证据表明：投票人在没
有证据的情况下真诚地相信prop8是与公众利益相关。那么投票人缺少根据的真实
想法是否影响prop8的合宪性？
见判例：Hernandez诉Robles，855 NE2d 1, 7-8(2006)（在缺少结论性科学证据的
情况下，立法应该合理地基于常识：有父有母的家庭对孩子最好。）
(ps: 法律用语好难，大家看看有没有翻错)
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: To Plaintiffs and Proponents:
: 1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims?
: Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?
: 2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of
: a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or
: “arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause? See Minnesota v
: Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 469 (1981); FCC v Beach
: Communications, Inc, 508 US 305, 320 (1993).
: 3. What does the evidence show the difference to be bet
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 14 我觉得找到答案比翻译问题更有用。
看你这么老黄牛，不忍心。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 一个一个地翻吧。
:
: 假设证据表明prop8实际上并非与公众利益相关。假定更多证据表明：投票人在没
: 有证据的情况下真诚地相信prop8是与公众利益相关。那么投票人缺少根据的真实
: 想法是否影响prop8的合宪性？
: 见判例：Hernandez诉Robles，855 NE2d 1, 7-8(2006)（在缺少结论性科学证据的
: 情况下，立法应该合理地基于常识：有父有母的家庭对孩子最好。）
: (ps: 法律用语好难，大家看看有没有翻错)
|
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 15 挑几个我们版面有可能解答的翻翻看就好了，
也算是挖一些值得灌水的好坑。
翻完这个我发现以我们的能力根本没法讨论。
问题太深了。
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得找到答案比翻译问题更有用。
: 看你这么老黄牛，不忍心。
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 16 是。如果过几天别人也没找到答案，我再多花点时间找。刚刚试了一下。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 挑几个我们版面有可能解答的翻翻看就好了，
: 也算是挖一些值得灌水的好坑。
: 翻完这个我发现以我们的能力根本没法讨论。
: 问题太深了。
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | |
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 20 Read brief guide to closing arguments for lay people.
我又在上面加了几个LINK。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 看了个开头就头大了
|
|
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 21 可以作为大家的暑假作业，看完后都是JD了。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 看了个开头就头大了
|
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 22 看到了。
找资料不容易，赞一下。
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: Read brief guide to closing arguments for lay people.
: 我又在上面加了几个LINK。
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 23 1. Assume the evidence shows Proposition 8 is not in fact
rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Assume
further the evidence shows voters genuinely but without
evidence believed Proposition 8 was rationally related to a
legitimate interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the
absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the
constitutionality of Proposition 8? See Hernandez v Robles,
855 NE2d 1, 7-8 (2006) (“In the absence of conclusive
scientific evidence, the Legislature coul
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: To Plaintiffs and Proponents:
: 1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims?
: Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?
: 2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of
: a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or
: “arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause? See Minnesota v
: Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 469 (1981); FCC v Beach
: Communications, Inc, 508 US 305, 320 (1993).
: 3. What does the evidence show the difference to be bet
|
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 24 问一下state interest到底是指什么？
政府利益和公众利益(public interest)有什么联系和区别？
【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】
: 1. Assume the evidence shows Proposition 8 is not in fact
: rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Assume
: further the evidence shows voters genuinely but without
: evidence believed Proposition 8 was rationally related to a
: legitimate interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the
: absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the
: constitutionality of Proposition 8? See Hernandez v Robles,
: 855 NE2d 1, 7-8 (2006) (“In the absence of conclusive
: scientific evidence, the Legislature coul
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 25 2. What evidence supports a finding that maintaining marriage as
an opposite-sex relationship does not afford a rational basis
for Proposition 8?
3. Until very recently, same-sex relationships did not enjoy
legal protection anywhere in the United States. How does this
fact square with plaintiffs’ claim that marriage between
persons of the same sex enjoys the status of a fundamental
right entitled to constitutional protection?
2. 有何证据可以支持“保证婚姻是两性之间的关系”不能作为8号决议案的合理基础？
3. 直到最近，同性关系在美国任何地方都不能得到法律的保护
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: To Plaintiffs and Proponents:
: 1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims?
: Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?
: 2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of
: a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or
: “arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause? See Minnesota v
: Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 469 (1981); FCC v Beach
: Communications, Inc, 508 US 305, 320 (1993).
: 3. What does the evidence show the difference to be bet
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 26 4. What is the import of evidence showing that marriage has
historically been limited to a man and a woman? What evidence
shows that that limitation no longer enjoys constitutional
recognition?
5. What does the evidence show regarding the intent of the
voters? If the evidence shows that Proposition 8 on its face
and through its consequences distinguishes on the basis of
sexual orientation and sex, of what import is voter intent?
4.应当如何看待这样一个事实：婚姻在历史上都是被限定在一男一女之间的。有何证据
能够显示这一限制不再受到宪法的承认？
5.证据所表现的
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: To Plaintiffs and Proponents:
: 1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims?
: Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?
: 2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of
: a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or
: “arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause? See Minnesota v
: Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 469 (1981); FCC v Beach
: Communications, Inc, 508 US 305, 320 (1993).
: 3. What does the evidence show the difference to be bet
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 27 赞！
【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】
: 4. What is the import of evidence showing that marriage has
: historically been limited to a man and a woman? What evidence
: shows that that limitation no longer enjoys constitutional
: recognition?
: 5. What does the evidence show regarding the intent of the
: voters? If the evidence shows that Proposition 8 on its face
: and through its consequences distinguishes on the basis of
: sexual orientation and sex, of what import is voter intent?
: 4.应当如何看待这样一个事实：婚姻在历史上都是被限定在一男一女之间的。有何证据
: 能够显示这一限制不再受到宪法的承认？
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | |
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 29 6. What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal
recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination
against gays and lesbians?
7. What evidence supports a finding that recognition of same-sex
marriage would afford a permanent – as opposed to a transitory
– benefit to the City and County of San Francisco? To
California cities and counties generally?
6. 有什么实际数据能够支持这样一个观点，即法律上对于同性婚姻的承认能够减少对
于男女同性恋者的歧视？
7. 有什么证据能够支持这样一个观点，即对于同性婚姻的承认能够对旧金山市和旧金
山县带来长期、而非短期的利益？是否适用于加州所有城市和州县？
问题6是个“软问
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: To Plaintiffs and Proponents:
: 1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims?
: Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?
: 2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of
: a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or
: “arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause? See Minnesota v
: Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 469 (1981); FCC v Beach
: Communications, Inc, 508 US 305, 320 (1993).
: 3. What does the evidence show the difference to be bet
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 30 8. What is the relevance, if any, of data showing that state and
local governments would benefit economically if same-sex
couples were permitted to marry? Does that relevance depend
on the magnitude of the economic benefit?
9. What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against
enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs
propose?
8. 部分数据显示，如果允许同性结婚，州和地方政府在经济上会得益。这些证据究竟
有没有任何法律意义？它的法律意义是否和经济效益的幅度有关？
9. 废止执行8号决议案的结果是什么？原告方能提出什么样的补救措施？
问题8和证据学相关，原告方应该提出了很多证据证明同性婚姻对于州政府有益，但这
和8
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: 8. What is the relevance, if any, of data showing that state and
: local governments would benefit economically if same-sex
: couples were permitted to marry? Does that relevance depend
: on the magnitude of the economic benefit?
: 9. What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against
: enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs
: propose?
: 10. Even if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined,
: plaintiffs’ marriages would not be recognized under federal
: law. Can the court find Propos
|
|
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 31 所谓抛砖引玉。
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 我们终于等来高人了
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 32 10. Even if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined,
plaintiffs’ marriages would not be recognized under federal
law. Can the court find Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional
without also considering the constitutionality of the federal
Defense of Marriage Act?
11. What evidence supports a finding that the choice of a person
of the same sex as a marriage partner partakes of
traditionally revered liberties of intimate association and
individual autonomy?
12. If the evidence of the involvement o
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: 8. What is the relevance, if any, of data showing that state and
: local governments would benefit economically if same-sex
: couples were permitted to marry? Does that relevance depend
: on the magnitude of the economic benefit?
: 9. What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against
: enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs
: propose?
: 10. Even if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined,
: plaintiffs’ marriages would not be recognized under federal
: law. Can the court find Propos
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 33 rationally related to a legitimate state interest是一个法律标准，主要是美国
宪法诉讼中第五修正案和第十四修正案中的基本标准。
public interest是另一个法律标准，不过那是关于taking clause的。
这些就像是法律中的专有名字，基本上只在特定的环境下使用。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 问一下state interest到底是指什么？
: 政府利益和公众利益(public interest)有什么联系和区别？
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 34 我觉得这第10个问题是最重磅的，但是，州内有法律自主权，当州法与联邦法在法理上
发生冲突的时候，哪个该有优先权？请赐教。
【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】
: 10. Even if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined,
: plaintiffs’ marriages would not be recognized under federal
: law. Can the court find Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional
: without also considering the constitutionality of the federal
: Defense of Marriage Act?
: 11. What evidence supports a finding that the choice of a person
: of the same sex as a marriage partner partakes of
: traditionally revered liberties of intimate association and
: individual autonomy?
: 12. If the evidence of the involvement o
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 35 联邦宪法 > 联邦普通法 > 州宪法 > 州普通法
但这只是很简单的归类，且只在联邦法和州法冲突的情况下有效。是否冲突的问题又很
复杂，不能从字面上决定。
在同性婚姻这个问题上，联邦普通法和加州宪法是一致的，并没有冲突。现在诉讼的问
题是，加州宪法是否违反联邦宪法？如果加州宪法违反联邦宪法的话，那么联邦普通法
是否违反联邦宪法。
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得这第10个问题是最重磅的，但是，州内有法律自主权，当州法与联邦法在法理上
: 发生冲突的时候，哪个该有优先权？请赐教。
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 36 哦，领教了，这个和我一直理解的正相反，我一点都不懂法律，所以，说错了请不要见
笑。
你知道Martha Coakley代理的麻州那个DOMA案子吗？好像那个案子的切入点就是告DOMA
侵犯了州自主权。如果是DOMA高于州法的话，那个案子就没戏了啊。。。您怎么看呢？
【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】
: 联邦宪法 > 联邦普通法 > 州宪法 > 州普通法
: 但这只是很简单的归类，且只在联邦法和州法冲突的情况下有效。是否冲突的问题又很
: 复杂，不能从字面上决定。
: 在同性婚姻这个问题上，联邦普通法和加州宪法是一致的，并没有冲突。现在诉讼的问
: 题是，加州宪法是否违反联邦宪法？如果加州宪法违反联邦宪法的话，那么联邦普通法
: 是否违反联邦宪法。
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 37 那是因为国会的权力是受联邦宪法限制的。
并不是说DOMA违反了州法律，是因为国会在通过DOMA时超过了联邦宪法赋予国会的权力。
DOMA
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 哦，领教了，这个和我一直理解的正相反，我一点都不懂法律，所以，说错了请不要见
: 笑。
: 你知道Martha Coakley代理的麻州那个DOMA案子吗？好像那个案子的切入点就是告DOMA
: 侵犯了州自主权。如果是DOMA高于州法的话，那个案子就没戏了啊。。。您怎么看呢？
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 38 btw, 我觉得麻州这个案子没啥希望。
Prop 8这个案子非常复杂，胜算其实并不大。而且赢是全胜，输是全输。不过世界上什
么事情都会发生，比如明年审判之前哪个保守派大法官中风了。。（恩，Scalia快80的
人了）
DOMA
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 哦，领教了，这个和我一直理解的正相反，我一点都不懂法律，所以，说错了请不要见
: 笑。
: 你知道Martha Coakley代理的麻州那个DOMA案子吗？好像那个案子的切入点就是告DOMA
: 侵犯了州自主权。如果是DOMA高于州法的话，那个案子就没戏了啊。。。您怎么看呢？
|
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 39 是啊，感动ing，潜水的人里面真是藏龙卧虎。
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 我们终于等来高人了
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 40 哦。。。这个，我理解起来就比较困难了。嗯，谢谢赐教。
如果您将来有时间的话，很期待看到您分析一下正在进行的几个DOMA挑战案
不知道您是不是同性恋，但是DOMA案子是我们大家最关心的（我还因此逼着板二和我赌
了包子，我比较乐观，觉得5年之内能部分地repeal doma，也就是说，联邦能承认同性
婚姻，但是各州有权自己决定）
力。
【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】
: 那是因为国会的权力是受联邦宪法限制的。
: 并不是说DOMA违反了州法律，是因为国会在通过DOMA时超过了联邦宪法赋予国会的权力。
:
: DOMA
|
|
|
p*******r
发帖数: 145 | 41 术业有专攻。。。其实就是专业忽悠人。
kaleege同学的帖子很多写得很好，比这些法律名词更有说服力。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 是啊，感动ing，潜水的人里面真是藏龙卧虎。
|
a***n
发帖数: 2632 | |
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 43 俺就是一外行说外行话，让内行看了当笑话。
多向内行学习。
【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】
: 术业有专攻。。。其实就是专业忽悠人。
: kaleege同学的帖子很多写得很好，比这些法律名词更有说服力。
|
