Before heading to the Supremes, they could ask for an en banc hearing before the entire 9th circuit. However, the en banc hearing is at the discretion of the court and not an automatic thing.

Another issue with the case being heard by anyone else is that, given the pace of the judicial system, any decision is probably going to come after the election, which renders the issue moot / non-justiceable.

Oh, Amy. Do you have to be such a liberal?

The court just said that the state can essentially throw out any initiative it wants, with no chance of an appeal from the people. Forget your personal opinion on this particular initiative, is that really a precedent you want on the books? Do you see no way that could ever come back and bite you in the ass?

And just to play the devil's advocate here; why shouldn't civil unions be put to the ballot? You believe in democracy, don't you? Shouldn't the people have their say?

Kyle.

You vote on mine, I get vote on yours how about that?

Majorities trying to subjugate minorities should not be voted on, come on that is just silly.

I never said I believed in democracy.

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. So in any resepect its moot.

So basically you are advocating discrimination for what? Fun? Profit?

"And just to play the devil's advocate here; why shouldn't civil unions be put to the ballot? You believe in democracy, don't you? Shouldn't the people have their say?"

No, I don't believe the majority should ever vote on the civil rights rights of the minority. There's an inherent power imbalance there. Those decisions are best left to an elected body whose job it is to weigh both sides and do what is best for the whole. And you have had a say, when you elected your representatives.

As for the issue of "setting a precedent," it's not one I'll lose sleep over. The anti-gay group didn't get enough signatures. If they want to press the issue, they can try harder next time to get enough signatures. The playing field is still level, and the state's rules were applied fairly. It's common political strategy with initiatives to assume you're only going to have a validity rate in the 60 to 70 percentile. This group turned in so few signatures, they had little margin for error in even a system that's already weighted toward accepting signatures.

A body elected by the majority is more qualified to decide your freedom then the majority itself?

To be clear, the point I'm trying to make is that no one is qualified to make decisions about your freedom. I'm getting tired of people who support mild fascism when it gives them what they want, but then turn around get pissy when it doesn't. If the elected body said your life style was a sin and you should be put in jail, would you go along with that? Either you support the system or you don't.

This isn't all directed at you personally, Amy--but come on... Really?

Kyle- You are falling into the trap of logical extremes. It is never all or nothing. The republic is the system we have. Yes if you follow the logic it will eventually lead back to problems but so would no system. The fact is that we are not ready for Anarchy, even a Utopian one. The whole point is that laws should not be governed by sins, only intrusions of some kind or another.

You want to rail at the system fine, but trying to crap on the happiness this brings is just sad.

"If the elected body said your life style was a sin and you should be put in jail, would you go along with that? Either you support the system or you don't."

If I saw that U.S. voters had elected leaders who were going to make such a decision, I'd seek asylum in Canada.

Or, the more likely scenario, which has already played out in a place called Tennessee. Rhea county, to be specific: There, a government body did declare it illegal to be gay. Instead of opponents sending that out for a public vote, the board was scrutinized and criticized and lobbied hard. And they reversed their vote (and claimed it was all a misunderstanding, of course).

I wrote about it a few years back, after traveling to the little Tennessee county a few weeks later, to check out the resulting first ever "gay day" pride celebration.

http://thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=18633

From that story:

"On March 16, 2004, Rhea County Commissioner J. C. Fugate snuck one last item onto the agenda, just as the commission's monthly meeting was wrapping up. After giving a brief speech denouncing gay marriage, Fugate took his rant one step further: "I'd like to make a motion that those kind of people cannot live in Rhea County or abide in Rhea County," he said. "If [homosexuals are] caught in Rhea County living together as such, that they be tried for crimes against nature." The handful of citizens there to observe the meeting--held in a courtroom in the Dayton courthouse--applauded. The commission then voted unanimously, asking the county's attorney to draft a resolution to pass on to the state legislature."

I realize we're not ready for Anarchy, but that doesn't mean it can't still be a goal for society, that it can't be something we try to move towards.

At the very least, we could try not cheering when the government says we can't appeal a part of the of the legislative process.

"At the very least, we could try not cheering when the government says we can't appeal a part of the of the legislative process."

No one has said that. You CAN appeal the legislative process, but you have to follow the rules and process and do so successfully. The anti-gay group's effort went through the process that every group goes through, and they ultimately weren't successful. But they can still try to repeal the law. Hell, they can try every year if they want to. The problem is there wasn't enough interest in signing their petition. If I recall correctly, the petition proponents had a hard time getting churches to help them out this time. And the Oregon Family Council - the crew behind M36 - opted to sit this one out because their concerns were heard and taken into consideration at the legislative level.

If anything, this is an example of government working exactly as it should - fairly, too.

What the court said today was that the government is the sole arbiter when it comes to signature validation, and that you can not appeal their decision. If I remember correctly, individual people who's signatures had been rejected were contacting the state, telling them that they had in fact signed the petition. The state told them that it didn't matter, their signatures had been rejected.

Based on this ruling, the state could reject any number of initiatives, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's not a good thing.

Yes, Kyle, there were a few people who were claiming the signature was there's, even though they looked absolutely nothing like their official signatures.

But at the district court hearing(s), an Oregon State Police forensic signature examiner who looked at all the sheets said the state should have thrown out about 60 more signatures that were clearly invalid and were accepted erroneously.

So, maybe a few valid signatures are tossed, but a whole lot more invalid signatures are accepted. In the end, the system is weighted heavily in favor of initiative petitioners. In this case, the petitioners were so unsuccessful in gathering signatures that not even that reality could help them.

In other words, the system worked.

Lastly, if the government isn't the final arbiter of validity, who should be? The proponents of an initiative? The opponents? I'll take bureaucratic, impassive, trained elections workers over that any day.

MWR:

"I'll take bureaucratic, impassive, trained elections workers over that any day."

Since when? They, like anyone else, have passions and hatreds. The courts are flawed, but at least they are a final word.

As to the topic of the article, I take comfort that I am a humaphob. I am disgusted uniformly by human behavior.

I remain do-dah, do-dah,

Jacomus