Prop 8 overturned in California

[Valigarmander]

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage - CNN.com

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

:thumbsup:

[Vgfian]

Wow, another example of a judge not giving a crap about what the people vote for. Whoopdy doo.

[Metal Man]

'The People' in this case being primarily non-gay and influenced by Utah carpetbaggers who came on down and spent millions because they disliked what "The People" of San Francisco and LA had already allowed within their gates.

Furthermore, if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Finally, having lived here 20+ years, I can pretty much say I have a good idea of where it is here--propositions are readily passed for anything here because people here are dumb and practically vote anything in. Even a blatant utility power grab almost succeeded, even though it would have taken control of electricity from people and allowed power companies to jack up prices.

In the end, a proposition in California fails both at 'representing' the people and also in this case, at even representing the people it usually does.

[Vgfian]

Originally Posted by Metal Man

Furthermore, if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Dude, if you're going to compare voting for something you think is right, while everyone else is as well to jumping off of a bridge with everyone, then you just need to shut up. Just because you yourself think something is wrong, doesn' make it "jumping off a bridge".

Originally Posted by Metal Man

Finally, having lived here 20+ years, I can pretty much say I have a good idea of where it is here--propositions are readily passed for anything here because people here are dumb and practically vote anything in.

That's your opinion of them, but how can you tell? Can you get inside of everyone's heads? I think not.

Originally Posted by Metal Man

'The People' in this case being primarily non-gay and influenced by Utah carpetbaggers who came on down and spent millions because they disliked what "The People" of San Francisco and LA had already allowed within their gates.

Yes, primarily non-gay CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE for WHATEVER they see fit.
I don't care if they voted because they were influenced by someone else. The judge is showing a blatant disregard for what was voted through.
And as far as 'why' people voted, again I mention my doubts about you being able to read thoughts. And I also doubt that you interviewed every single voter to find out what they voted for and why..

Originally Posted by Metal Man

In the end, a proposition in California fails both at 'representing' the people and also in this case, at even representing the people it usually does.

What? Can you clarify this sentence as your wording does not speak to me.

[CuccoLady]

The whole point of the court system is to interpret the laws/propositions/etc the people vote on to determine whether or not they are constitutional. If we took that power from them, we'd kind of be taking away the point of the court systems. As much as America is all about THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, we aren't an anarchy-- we have a government with its own structure and jobs to fulfill, and the job of the court systems is to make sure no laws go against our constitution

In turn, it's possible-- just really really difficult-- to amend the constitution as the people see fit in order to prevent it from keeping the same ideals it had when it was first founded.

So yeah, our system isn't perfect, but this judge was doing his job-- interpreting the law and determining whether or not it was constitutional.

This won't be the last court case regarding this; it'll make its way through our entire court system, I assure you. There will be multiple other judges interpreting this law and determining whether or not it is constitutional, and in the end, if the proposition is completely overturned, it will be because at least like 5 well-educated judges all thought that the law is not right ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION, not their own personal beliefs.

It's how our system works.

Also, WOOOOOOT.

[CodenameV]

I agree with CL completely. Everyone's guaranteed equal protection of the law, black, white, jewish, christian, and yes indeed that also applies to straight and gay. It's our constitutional rights as American citizens. If a bunch of people said black people couldn't marry, would that be right?

[CaptHayfever]

Also: The judge is a Republican. Yay for breaking stereotypes!

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Metal Man]

Yeah, what they said about the court system. What do you think, VGFian? Should they have not overturned racism this way too?

Because that's what you're proposing, by claiming courts should never be able to contradict something people voted on.

As for the other stuff, VGFian, it's not even worth replying to you over, because you'll just come up with some new quote and 'contradiction' and pretend that makes you right. I know it well, I've done that technique for years. You're silly if you think I'm going to play that game over this one. You can't trump experience with hearsay and hypothetical nonsense.

[Panfan]

Anyone got popcorn? Cuz this ****'s gon' go down

[Crazyswordsman]

While it's unfortunate that we have to use the judges and the court system to protect victims of discrimination, it's the right thing to do considering the anti-gay propaganda machines influencing voters. If voters could decide what consenting adults get to do in their private life, who's to say they can't decide to round up all the Jews and send them to concentration camps (note: I'm absolutely not trying to be anti-Semitic; I'm Jewish myself). -CSM

[Vgfian]

CSM, YOU ANTI-SEMITIC BASTERD!

@ Metal Man: I LEARN FROM THE BEST.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by Vgfian

Wow, another example of a judge not giving a crap about what the people vote for. Whoopdy doo.

1 2 3 4 I declare a Flame War:

Wow, another example of a fair-weather fan of constitutional procedure. Whoopdy doo.

Guess what? The judge is part of a political system sustained by elections. The people voted for this, too. Oopsie.

Or did you actually aim to lean more toward the Democratic medium and less toward the structure of a Republic? Oh dear, I'm not sure you understand the implications of that.



I suggest we cut the patronizing tones, the ones that suggest someone here needs to be explained of the intricacies of the political machine, or some egos are going to be bruised. There are plenty that would rise to that call, and not so many who are apt to explain in any universal terms.

[Robotazy]

This is a momentous occasion!

Drink: Wine



ogodshouldn'tadonethatohwell. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Metal Man]

* Metal Man casts summon Lurch1982

[Cosmonautical]

^ doin it rong, it's "lurch one nine eight two, i choose you"

[Kil'jaeden]

Why doesn't someone just look up the article about gay marriage in the Constitution? It's probably a sub-section of the marriage part. It is a troublesome task, but that would solve it quickly.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

Excellent news. I'm glad that things are heading in the right direction.

[Fairlight Excalibur]

Lurch1982 is unable to comment at this time, as he is currently sharing his thoughts on the Fox News forums.

[heh]

man the thread****ting began in the first post, new record

[Valigarmander]

Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings - Yahoo! News

SAN FRANCISCO – Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.

The motions came two days after U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately. But later Wednesday, he agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments he ordered to be filed by Friday.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.

They argued in court papers filed earlier this week that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling.

The 9th Circuit received their appeal of Walker's decision on Wednesday, hours after the judge ruled that Proposition 8 violates the civil rights of gay Californians.

On Friday, Schwarzenegger and Brown were the first to urge an immediate resumption of gay marriage, which was legal in the state for more than four months before voters amended the California Constitution to outlaw it in November 2008.

The legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of two gay couples that led to Walker's ruling, also submitted a motion in conjunction with the city of San Francisco, another plaintiff.

They all argued that since the judge declared Proposition 8 to be illegal, gay couples should be able to marry now.

Boies and Olson said gay couples "will continue to suffer irreparable harm if Proposition 8's irrational deprivation of their constitutional rights is prolonged."

It was unclear when the judge would decide whether to order the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or to grant a stay that would keep the gay marriage ban in effect during the appeals process.

Even if he does clear the way for same-sex couples to wed, lawyers for sponsors of Proposition 8 plan to ask the federal appeals court for an emergency order to prevent that from happening.

The governor and attorney general almost always defend state laws when they are challenged. But in this case, both refused to participate in fighting the lawsuit aimed at overturning the ban.

Brown is the Democratic nominee for governor on the November ballot and he previously called the ban unconstitutional.

Schwarzenegger has been more circumspect on his Proposition 8 position and his motion to immediately resume gay marriage was his boldest pronouncement on the issue.

"The administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," lawyers for Schwarzenegger said in the legal filing. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

Brown also said it's time for gays to begin marrying again.

"While there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this court's conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," Brown said in his legal filing.

The outcome in the appeals court could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin, president of the California Association of Clerk and Elected Officials, said county agencies that issue marriage licenses will be ready to serve same-sex couples whenever they get the green light.

During the window in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal in California, the state changed its marriage license applications to be gender-neutral so applicants only had to check boxes indicating "bride" or "groom" if they chose to.

At the same time, Pellerin said local officials do not want to be in the position of being asked to issue licenses if Walker enforces his decision only to have an appeals court later impose a stay. It would be better for all involved to have the process be unambiguous, she said.

"We don't want to issue a couple who are in love and want to get married a $75 license and then turn around a minute or a week later and say that license is no longer valid," she said. "We don't want anyone to be in the position of being led down that path."

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.