California Proposition 8 OVERTURNED !

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 04, 2010 9:13 PM GMT
    (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.


    SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

    Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

    Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

    Attorneys on both sides have said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

    Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending.

    "Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid," they wrote.

    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.
    _____________________________________________________

    CONCLUSION

    Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
    singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
    Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
    enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-
    sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.

    Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:30 PM GMT
    Awesome news!

    There's really no other way for it to pass because there are too many socially conservative democrats who would vote against it (the ones who like welfare but not gays).
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14342

    Aug 04, 2010 9:49 PM GMT
    This is the best news of this year. That horrendous proposition 8 is declared unconstitutional. That should teach this narrow-minded, bible thumping screwballs a good, hard lesson not to use a voter initiative to trample other peoples rights. As for gay marriage causing instability in the institution of marriage and being a potentially serious threat to child upbringing, what a baseless, nonsensical crock of shit. There is not a shred of credible evidence that says that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage or hurt children. That is all propaganda from both the Morons oops I mean the Mormons and the hypocritical, morally corrupt Roman Catholic Church.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 9:51 PM GMT
    YAY!!!

    Can I has gay marriage now?
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Aug 04, 2010 10:05 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCouldn't they have assigned a judge who wasn't gay to decide this? icon_rolleyes.gif


    No -- had they assigned a straight judge you (yes you) would have to object that he's biased as a straight man....


    Duh -- judges are to set aside biases and decide according to the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 10:45 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    AbFab1 said
    southbeach1500 saidCouldn't they have assigned a judge who wasn't gay to decide this? icon_rolleyes.gif


    No -- had they assigned a straight judge you (yes you) would have to object that he's biased as a straight man....


    Duh -- judges are to set aside biases and decide according to the law.


    No..... it just gives those opposed to "gay marriage" one more piece of ammunition. The decision would have had much more weight if the judge making this ruling was straight.



    Good Christ, you're insane.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14342

    Aug 04, 2010 10:51 PM GMT
    What the goddamned hell difference does it make if the federal judge was gay or straight? Violation of the 14th amendment is wrong regardless of the judges natural sexual orientation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCouldn't they have assigned a judge who wasn't gay to decide this? icon_rolleyes.gif


    But wasn't Chief Judge Walker first nominated by Reagan, then nominated AGAIN and confirmed under Bush-the-Devil?

    Didn't he represent the USOC in striking down the use of the term "Gay Olympics"?

    Could it be that whatever his sexual proclivities may be, that he is a jurist who is applying a conservative, fundamental interpretation of the Constitution?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    roadbikeRob saidWhat the goddamned hell difference does it make if the federal judge was gay or straight? Violation of the 14th amendment is wrong regardless of the judges natural sexual orientation.

    Again... it just gives those opposed to "gay marriage" one more piece of ammunition. The decision would have had much more weight if the judge making this ruling was straight.




    Consider that SB is NOT gay, for a moment, and it all makes sense....icon_wink.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    roadbikeRob saidWhat the goddamned hell difference does it make if the federal judge was gay or straight? Violation of the 14th amendment is wrong regardless of the judges natural sexual orientation.

    Again... it just gives those opposed to "gay marriage" one more piece of ammunition. The decision would have had much more weight if the judge making this ruling was straight.




    There is a system by which cases are assigned that doesn't take into account the sexual orientation of the judge. The judge could have recused himself but I don't see what that would have done. Will John Roberts recuse himself should this make it to the Supreme Court? After all, he has a well-established bias due to this religious belief.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:17 PM GMT
    GAMRican said
    southbeach1500 saidCouldn't they have assigned a judge who wasn't gay to decide this? icon_rolleyes.gif


    But wasn't Chief Judge Walker first nominated by Reagan, then nominated AGAIN and confirmed under Bush-the-Devil?

    Didn't he represent the USOC in striking down the use of the term "Gay Olympics"?

    Could it be that whatever his sexual proclivities may be, that he is a jurist who is applying a conservative, fundamental interpretation of the Constitution?



    Probably, but SB - like all Republicans - only sees "activism" in rulings he disagrees with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2010 11:22 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Consider that SB is NOT gay, for a moment, and it all makes sense....icon_wink.gif

    -Doug

    icon_eek.gif

    Is this true, SB. Are you....NOT GAY??????? icon_eek.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 04, 2010 11:58 PM GMT
    Was it "Activism" when the Supreme Court overturned Jim Crow Laws
    Was it "Activism" when the Supreme Court stopped School Segregation?

    It's "Activism" when the Court rules against your beliefs

    ................. But ..................... when it appoints a President and then exempts its own ruling from being used as a precedent

    .................... THAT'S not "Activism" icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 1:02 AM GMT
    GAMRican said
    meninlove said

    Consider that SB is NOT gay, for a moment, and it all makes sense....icon_wink.gif

    -Doug

    icon_eek.gif

    Is this true, SB. Are you....NOT GAY??????? icon_eek.gif


    SB? Do you have any comment or response?!

    Just speak into the microphone...

















    20091111-k5jk66qartemare47fxjrwrp7s.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 1:11 AM GMT
    Here is the ruling. The heart of the matter ("Conclusions of Law") appears on p. 109 (punch in 111 on the right to go there).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 1:16 AM GMT
    So, do you have to be a resident of California to marry there?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 1:41 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    southbeach1500 said
    roadbikeRob saidWhat the goddamned hell difference does it make if the federal judge was gay or straight? Violation of the 14th amendment is wrong regardless of the judges natural sexual orientation.

    Again... it just gives those opposed to "gay marriage" one more piece of ammunition. The decision would have had much more weight if the judge making this ruling was straight.




    Consider that SB is NOT gay, for a moment, and it all makes sense....icon_wink.gif

    -Doug


    PLEASE?

    OH, PLEASE!

    CUZ FRANKLY, WE DON'T WANT HIM.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 2:18 AM GMT
    twomack saidSo, do you have to be a resident of California to marry there?


    In a hurry? You can marry in Iowa right now!
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 05, 2010 2:23 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    roadbikeRob saidWhat the goddamned hell difference does it make if the federal judge was gay or straight? Violation of the 14th amendment is wrong regardless of the judges natural sexual orientation.

    Again... it just gives those opposed to "gay marriage" one more piece of ammunition. The decision would have had much more weight if the judge making this ruling was straight.




    and if you're response were grammatical correct, then it would have also increased the perceived intelligence of your argument... but that straw man reference doesn't dismiss your point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 6:02 AM GMT
    southbeach> it just gives those opposed to "gay marriage" one more piece of ammunition.

    The 3rd person pitch loses credibility given the scare quotes around "gay marriage".

    The above isn't a legal argument, so why would any intelligent person care, anyhow?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 6:35 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCouldn't they have assigned a judge who wasn't gay to decide this? icon_rolleyes.gif


    He was randomly assigned to it. You could ask why he didn't recuse himself from it, but... I wouldn't have done it in his place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 6:36 AM GMT
    I just wanna say as a 22 year old that it feels so great to witness hystory being made, just a few days ago Argentina aprobed same sex marrige, a step HUGE in latinamerica, and now California is leading the rest of the country in the battle for equality.

    No one can doubt America is a great country, I deeply admire your judiciary system. God, great times are in the horizon, i know it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 6:51 AM GMT
    Um...I don't think you can claim that California has "led" the charge for gay marriage in the United States, especially when Prop 8 was first proposed and then passed by the electorate. Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Iowa are all ahead of California on this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 6:55 AM GMT
    HOLY SHIT! The judge who decided this is gay? Well, that fucks everything up. Now I know why Brown V Board of Education bothered me so much...that goddamn lawyer Thurgood was black! It would have been so much more meaningful (and better ammunition) if Brown's lawyer was Jimmy Stewart.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 05, 2010 7:01 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCouldn't they have assigned a judge who wasn't gay to decide this? icon_rolleyes.gif




    Only a bitter, angry, self-loathing turd like you could find fault with this wonderful news. I hope that your yellow hair piece gets snatched by a rottweiler.