Prop 8 ruled Unconstitutional!

[AngeloMichael]

Way to go California! I know you've still got a bit further to go with this but my heartfelt joy towards the gay community for getting this win!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's not final victory . . . yet! But it's a huge step forward.

 

[3113]

It's not final victory . . . yet! But it's a huge step forward.

Indeed! But at least you don't have to be ashamed of being on the flag anymore....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2dJQxEtZAVo/ShqqtC2KjAI/AAAAAAAAAsg/0kYkCQLesuY/s400/Rainbow+Bear+Flag.jpg

 

[Katyusha]

Woot! HUGE step forward!!

 

[Boxlicker101]

It is a big win, and it makes for an interesting situation. Jerry Brown is the AG and, as such, he may have to be the one to take the decision to the Ninth to litigate against it. I wonder what kind of a job he would do, since he is opposed to Prop. 8.

 

[Huckleman2000]

It is a big win, and it makes for an interesting situation. Jerry Brown is the AG and, as such, he may have to be the one to take the decision to the Ninth to litigate against it. I wonder what kind of a job he would do, since he is opposed to Prop. 8.

He and Schwarznegger declined to defend the Proposition in this case, so the group who put Prop 8 on the ballot defended it. I don't think that will change as the case goes to appeal.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Big ups, my Cali brethren and sistren. Make some happy tonight and every night afterwards!

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-08/55370211.jpg

 

[Boota]

That's good news, but I think it still looks very unfavorably on the whole country for this even being an issue. That there are so many people fighting for state sponsored discrimination just shines a spotlight on the level and strength of the ignorance in this country. Here's to hoping we can silence the ignorant bigots once and for all.

 

[Boxlicker101]

He and Schwarznegger declined to defend the Proposition in this case, so the group who put Prop 8 on the ballot defended it. I don't think that will change as the case goes to appeal.

Brown will not be the AG after this year and Schwarzenegger won't be gov. I don't know how soon the appeal will be filed, and I haven't heard anything from any of the candidates to succeed them. Brown is running for gov. but I know nothing about the AG candidates.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Way to go California! I know you've still got a bit further to go with this but my heartfelt joy towards the gay community for getting this win!

Don't say Way to go California. The voters of the state voted in favor of the prop. It was the Fed. court that overturned it.

 

[amicus]

Regardless of morals, this was the legally correct ruling. And personally, I'm happy about it.

A federal level appeal will be tough. Of course now the question is how much political backlash will there be? Could this be a rallying cry in November to defeat Boxer/Jerry Brown?[/QUOTE]

~~~

An interesting question, JamesSD, the answer to which will be interesting to observe.

There is another question I would pose concerning the 30 States that have voted against same sex marriage. If it is a State issue, as JBJ says, what then of the constitutional basis for defining marriage as between one man and one woman?

Even more sticky is the question concerning people who voted their conscience, won, and then had their decision overturned by a Federal Court. If the people cease to trust their form of government, as is mirrored in the States rejecting Obamacare, what then for the Republic?

You may have won this one small battle, but if a Conservative Christian morality sweeps the country and puts you back in the closet...what have you gained?

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I expect political backlash from this, immigration, ObamaCare, deficits, Muslimania, etc, to seriously hurt the Democrats in November; and if the Democrats get burned by their enthusiasm Federal judges across the land will note which way the wind blows and how theyre likely to fare if theyre nominated for higher position. Last Tuesday a handful of career Democrat and GOP pols were sacked by voters unhappy with business in Washington

If the Supremes take the case same-sex marriage will likely suffer the fate of Plessy v Ferguson or be tossed back to the states, which amounts to a ban on same-sex marriage. If the Supremes uphold the trial court by opposing the will of most Americans, the Democrats will pay the political bill, which means Democrat patrons lose all their marbles, and seriously decreases the appeal and influence of Democrat pols.

When I was 16 I snatched a belt from my mom's hand and told her, WOMAN! YOUR ASS WHIPPIN DAYS IS OVER! She then turned the problem over to my dad who informed me that my driving, working, and dating days were over.

 

[LaRocha]

Ultimately it cant prevail cuz marriage is a states perogative. States can and do establish all kinds of marriage qualification parameters. The Supremes' first question is gonna be, WHY DO WE HAVE JURISDICTION OF A STATE PEROGATIVE?

I'm trying to reason out why the judge says its a due process problem. There was due process every step of the way. Apparently the judge considers marriage a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution but marriage fails the test cuz its a contract between people; you cant marry yourself or marry period without the expressed consent of a 2nd party. The government has no obligation to provide you with a partner. Marriage requires a license unlike voting or school attendance or freedom of movement.

Its toast.

Marriage isn't a private contract between two people. It's a PUBLIC contract between two people and the government, which can be parsed down to government and man, and government and woman, the example being one partner dies and their government pension and social security goes to the living partner in the contracted partnership. There are countless examples of government granting partnerships between two private citizens, such as LLCs.

The only difference with marriage is whether or not one contract can be between two men or two women. That's where Civil Rights Act is stretched to accommodate gays. Done deal, gays marry. Then it's time to stretch Civil Rights act to accommodate marriages between 3, 5, 69, 200 people Marriage shouldn't be recognized by government to begin with, 'bout time to do something about that.

 

[xssve]

Then it's time to stretch Civil Rights act to accommodate marriages between 3, 5, 69, 200 people Marriage shouldn't be recognized by government to begin with, 'bout time to do something about that.

That's called incorporation.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If the Supremes ordain same-sex marriage the shackles come off every other arrangement, including union with a minor. I mean, if a teen can have an abortion she can marry whomever she wants.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

If the Supremes ordain same-sex marriage the shackles come off every other arrangement, including union with a minor. I mean, if a teen can have an abortion she can marry whomever she wants.

I suggest that you actually read the opinion before you try to analyze it. It would be the intellectually honest thing to do. Most of your questions are answered within the four corners of the opinion.

Also, take a moment to read the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Judge Walker's opinion is grounded in a long body of US constitutional law, as well as 40 pages of factual findings. The factual issues were virtually uncontested during the trial.

Conclusions of law can be overturned on appeal, but findings of fact are almost impossible to overturn, unless the challenging party can show that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the findings. Good luck with that.

 

[3113]

That's good news, but I think it still looks very unfavorably on the whole country for this even being an issue. That there are so many people fighting for state sponsored discrimination just shines a spotlight on the level and strength of the ignorance in this country. Here's to hoping we can silence the ignorant bigots once and for all.

Don't say Way to go California. The voters of the state voted in favor of the prop. It was the Fed. court that overturned it.

As a Californian, I'm in agreement with both of you on this. Though the majority vote was narrow (52-48%) California should be ashamed for ever having Prop. 8 on the ballot or passing it. We are among the states that let down all that America should stand for with this blatant piece of discrimination.

There is no patting ourselves on the backs that the courts had to make it right, and those courts were not our courts. Justice should be for all, not for the majority.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Judge Walker applied the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause to marriage; he could do the same for the distribution of Christmas presents or Trick or Treat candy, but it doesnt mean marriage is a Federal perogative. The exisiting marriage laws are different in every state of the union; so there's no precedent where the Feds or the Constitution dominate the institution except in the case of mixed race, mixed religion marriage.

The institution of marriage is as old as Hell and has never been construed to be a vehicle for same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is unprecedented.

People forget or ignore a basic fact about America: We have a dual sovereignty political system. The Fed has its realm and so do the States. We are the United STATES of America NOT The United STATE of America. Any state that wants to forfeit Federal tax money can thumb its nose at most Federal Policies.

Hypothetically, if everyone in the Mafia married each other none of them can be compelled to testify against any of their partners. All Judge Walker did was invite absurdity inside.

 

[3113]

Quick interview with the two attorneys who won the case, their thoughts on it and its future.

 

[swordandsandle]

Judge Walker applied the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause to marriage; he could do the same for the distribution of Christmas presents or Trick or Treat candy, but it doesnt mean marriage is a Federal perogative. The exisiting marriage laws are different in every state of the union; so there's no precedent where the Feds or the Constitution dominate the institution except in the case of mixed race, mixed religion marriage.

The institution of marriage is as old as Hell and has never been construed to be a vehicle for same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is unprecedented.

People forget or ignore a basic fact about America: We have a dual sovereignty political system. The Fed has its realm and so do the States. We are the United STATES of America NOT The United STATE of America. Any state that wants to forfeit Federal tax money can thumb its nose at most Federal Policies.

Hypothetically, if everyone in the Mafia married each other none of them can be compelled to testify against any of their partners. All Judge Walker did was invite absurdity inside.

The institution of slavery was as "old as (insert name of negative or at least not posative afterlife you choose to beleive in here)", but we got that as well.

Seriously, scrap the homophopia that you thinly disguies. States are bound to the will of the Fed (the accepted constitution clearly states that the Federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land), and if a state thumbed it's nose at the feds, well, we'll see if it stays independent for long.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The institution of slavery was as "old as (insert name of negative or at least not posative afterlife you choose to beleive in here)", but we got that as well.

Seriously, scrap the homophopia that you thinly disguies. States are bound to the will of the Fed (the accepted constitution clearly states that the Federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land), and if a state thumbed it's nose at the feds, well, we'll see if it stays independent for long.

Answering strawman arguments and ignorant insults is a waste of energy. Happiness is rare and momentary in politics. We enjoy it as long as we can, knowing all the while that the next battle is just around the corner.

(in other words, put the troll on ignore)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The institution of slavery was as "old as (insert name of negative or at least not posative afterlife you choose to beleive in here)", but we got that as well.

Seriously, scrap the homophopia that you thinly disguies. States are bound to the will of the Fed (the accepted constitution clearly states that the Federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land), and if a state thumbed it's nose at the feds, well, we'll see if it stays independent for long.

You dont understand the nature of politics, dear, and you dont get the nature of dual sovereignty. Gore lost the 2000 Florida election cuz Florida has its own way of counting votes, and the Supremes confirmed that Florida can do it however it wants, just as Massachuesetts did last week when it changed the rule for how it awards its electoral votes.


Homophobes are God's chilluns, too.

 

[statsultan]

There is another question I would pose concerning the 30 States that have voted against same sex marriage. If it is a State issue, as JBJ says, what then of the constitutional basis for defining marriage as between one man and one woman?

Even more sticky is the question concerning people who voted their conscience, won, and then had their decision overturned by a Federal Court. If the people cease to trust their form of government, as is mirrored in the States rejecting Obamacare, what then for the Republic?

You may have won this one small battle, but if a Conservative Christian morality sweeps the country and puts you back in the closet...what have you gained?

Amicus

A big part of the gay marriage issue is how it is characterized. The federal court decision last month overturning parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stated that marriage was traditionally a state issue, and so the federal government had no business telling states that they would not recognize certain marriages that were entered into legally under a state's laws as doing so was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Here in this most recent decision, we have a federal court stating that the amendment to CA's constitution barring gays from marriage was itself unconstitutional, a violation of both the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

But to get to your warnings about the future of our country - I think the federal courts overturning racial segregation was a much bigger deal. It certainly restructured the political landscape of the country, but the Republic survived. I'd expect much fewer problems this time 'round.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The federal courts didnt overturn segregation, the Civil Rights Laws of 1964 & 1965 did, along with Brown v Kansas BOE. Plessy v Fergusin was still in effect until that time.

 

[jehoram]

Don't say Way to go California. The voters of the state voted in favor of the prop. It was the Fed. court that overturned it.

And that's the heart of the argument, really. One of the things they gloss over in civics classes is that the rule of the majority does NOT outweigh the rights of the minority. If a majority of people voted to grant voting rights only to right-handed people, that law would be thrown out by the courts, regardless of how many voted in favor of it.

Similarly, if the state grant privileges to one class of people because of their ability to enter a legal contract, and denies those privileges to another class by barring them from entering that same legal contract, then that's discrimination.

And the argument that "if you allow same-sex marriage, you'll have to allow marriage with minors/corporations/farm animals" is not even worth responding to.