PDA

View Full Version : California ban overturned



LissaRoisin
08-05-2010, 03:32 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynewspoint/ynewspoint_ts3338;_ylt=AleJK8.AZo0ZbvU1Cdo8Z4wDW7o F;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2Y3FjNTdyBGFzc2V0A3luZXdzcG9pbnQvMjA xMDA4MDQveW5ld3Nwb2ludF90czMzMzgEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwN5b l9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDanVkZ2VvdmVydHV y

A federal judge Wednesday overturned (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ynewspoint/ts_ynewspoint/storytext/ynewspoint_ts3338/37132527/SIG=11iefnf55/*http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling) California’s ban on gay marriage, saying the voter-approved initiative violates both the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynewspoint/ynewspoint_ts3338;_ylt=AleJK8.AZo0ZbvU1Cdo8Z4wDW7o F;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2Y3FjNTdyBGFzc2V0A3luZXdzcG9pbnQvMjA xMDA4MDQveW5ld3Nwb2ludF90czMzMzgEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwN5b l9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDanVkZ2VvdmVydHV y#) ruling (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ynewspoint/ts_ynewspoint/storytext/ynewspoint_ts3338/37132527/SIG=11iefnf55/*http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling) does not make gay marriage legal in California immediately. The effect of the decision is on hold while Walker decides whether it should be suspended as defendants appeal the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In January and June, Walker heard from both sides in a unique proceeding intended to make factual findings on the purpose and history of marriage and how allowing gays and lesbians to marry would affect society. Befitting a trial on one of the most contentious issues of our time, the affair featured high-powered lawyers, emotional testimony both for and against gay marriage, arguments over evidence and over cameras in the courtroom, and extremely high stakes. The case is likely to be appealed (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/news/ynewspoint/ts_ynewspoint/storytext/ynewspoint_ts3338/37132527/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100616/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2627) all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Prop. 8 trial has been unique in its execution and scope; the judge truly looked for a factual record on marriage. Theodore Olson and David Boies (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynewspoint/ynewspoint_ts3338;_ylt=AleJK8.AZo0ZbvU1Cdo8Z4wDW7o F;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2Y3FjNTdyBGFzc2V0A3luZXdzcG9pbnQvMjA xMDA4MDQveW5ld3Nwb2ludF90czMzMzgEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwN5b l9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDanVkZ2VvdmVydHV y#) the lawyers who opposed each other before the Supreme Court in 2000 in Bush v. Gore teamed up to argue on behalf of four homosexual plaintiffs that Prop. 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians under what's called the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The defendants argued that the traditional definition of marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynewspoint/ynewspoint_ts3338;_ylt=AleJK8.AZo0ZbvU1Cdo8Z4wDW7o F;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2Y3FjNTdyBGFzc2V0A3luZXdzcG9pbnQvMjA xMDA4MDQveW5ld3Nwb2ludF90czMzMzgEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwN5b l9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDanVkZ2VvdmVydHV y#) should be maintained and that it's in society's best interest for children to be raised in heterosexual households.
Gay marriage is now legal in five states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont — and the District of Columbia.

Last month, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared that parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Constitution. (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/news/ynewspoint/ts_ynewspoint/storytext/ynewspoint_ts3338/37132527/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100709/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_benefits_11)
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynewspoint/ynewspoint_ts3338;_ylt=AleJK8.AZo0ZbvU1Cdo8Z4wDW7o F;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2Y3FjNTdyBGFzc2V0A3luZXdzcG9pbnQvMjA xMDA4MDQveW5ld3Nwb2ludF90czMzMzgEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwN5b l9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDanVkZ2VvdmVydHV y#), which brought the case on behalf of the same-sex plaintiffs, planned post-decision rallies on Wednesday evening in San Francisco and West Hollywood, California.

LdyJhawk
08-05-2010, 05:18 PM
woopwoop! *dance*

I've already been listening to people scream "but the people spoke out with their votes!" in response. Right well, this is America and last I checked we aren't universally OK with people getting to vote in bigotry and hatred.

I mean, the people spoke with their votes about slavery, women's rights and segregation but as it turns out those were all fucking wrong too! YAY JUDICIAL SYSTEM! GOGOGO!

OHOH! someone said, btw, that the reason we have crazy people killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics is because their "right to decide through the vote" was being overrun by judges. *shudder* that person worries me

Bronya
08-05-2010, 08:14 PM
I have 2 couples that are so happy. One couple, together for 17 years, the other 23. They both got married in Oct 2008 and everytime this comes up get so sad! Yesterday we all drank champagne.

Azura
08-06-2010, 06:11 AM
WOOOOOO!:cheer:

Selena
08-06-2010, 09:40 AM
this is America and last I checked we aren't universally OK with people getting to vote in bigotry and hatred.

I mean, the people spoke with their votes about slavery, women's rights and segregation but as it turns out those were all fucking wrong too! YAY JUDICIAL SYSTEM! GOGOGO!


And as Rachel Maddow put it, you can't 'vote' someone else's rights away. They are rights, and not up for a "majority vote" over the minority. Go watch at least the first 15 minutes of her report from 08/04/10. She's just beside herself, she's just so pleased with this ruling.

I'm so pleased to see someone standing up for what is right.

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples," -Judge Walker's opinion


(edit) Here's the ruling (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/Life/gaymarriage.pdf). (pdf format) Read it for yourselves. It is scathing! And awesome. Just shows the blatant hypocrisy with the denial of rights to this group of people.

- California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to
“mandate [its] own moral code.”

- “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never
been a rational basis for legislation... Tradition alone cannot support
legislation.

- What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral
view that there is something “wrong” with same-sex couples.

- The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass
Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage:
a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are
morally superior to same-sex couples.

- Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays
and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so
arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative.

The 6th Rogue
08-06-2010, 10:06 AM
Can't we all just fuck one another?

Phoenix McHeit
08-06-2010, 10:55 AM
This. Is. Beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes Ron - I'm in. ::waggle::

Cyranno DeBoberac
08-06-2010, 11:33 AM
So wait... all those millions of dollars that the Mormons spent to get Prop 8 passed... that all went to waste?

Gee... that's a shame.


::badhair:

Cyranno DeBoberac
08-06-2010, 11:35 AM
There's a post on this topic on another board that I'm on.

This guy has consistently been on the absolute wrong side of every issue imaginable. But he waxed eleoquent here:


I know for some people out there the whole idea of same sex marriage is scary and icky. I'm a conservative guy, I attend a Baptist church, I vote republican and I live in what some people consider fly over country or the middle of nowhere. So I guess many people would expect me to be on the side of Prop 8, and think this is the worst judicial ruling since the Dred Scott Case.

But I live in Iowa, and we went through all of this about a year ago. We have allowed same sex marriages for over a year now, and I am here to tell you that my marriage is just as solid as it was last year, if not more so. No one has tried to marry a cow, or pig, or their brother using the ruling as precedence. "The gays" aren't running around trying to recruit kids in elementary school. The state song has not been changed to a showtune.

In fact, as a heterosexual male, happily married, absolutely nothing in my life has changed since gay marriage has become legal. So my advice for all of you who are against gay marriage: Get over it. There are many more enjoyable and rewarding things to do in your life then worry about who someone else chooses to spend their life with.

Thistle
08-06-2010, 12:45 PM
I mean, the people spoke with their votes about slavery, women's rights and segregation but as it turns out those were all fucking wrong too! YAY JUDICIAL SYSTEM! GOGOGO!


QFT! Well said!

Mistress_Autumn
08-06-2010, 03:28 PM
As a woman in a government-recognized, heterosexual marriage... I say:

ABOUT DAMNED TIME!

Let them find love (or misery) as easily and legally as those of us in heterosexual relationships!

*hugs to all* I'm just so damned happy about this ruling!!!

Selena
08-06-2010, 03:39 PM
Wonderful little piece (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/06/notes080610.DTL) in the SF Gate.
To the hypocritical bigots thrusting their bible down everyone else's throats -- SEE!!

The sky ISN'T falling!!!!!

daBaroness
08-07-2010, 12:53 AM
I know this isn't over - it'll go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court - which could be an "iffy" proposition if the justices vote their own opinion rather than by strict interpretation of the constitution. I just still fail to see why this is an issue to anyone. As the quote from the gentleman from the neighboring state of Iowa so eloquently said - the sky ISN'T falling. Besides - civil union of same-sex persons isn't prohibited by the Constitution; has nothing to do with the safety and security of heterosexuals or religion. Insurance companies often recognize - and offer coverage of domestic partners - why can't *some* people just realize it doesn't threaten their moral sensitivities to offer the same protection of law to domestic partners that it does to hetersexual couples. A business partnership offers certain rights and protections for its members, why doesn't a civil/domestic partnership?

LdyJhawk
08-07-2010, 01:05 AM
The thing is, gay couples shouldn't have to "be satisfied" with a domestic partnership. I was, by legally filed documentation, Will's domestic partner. All it entitled me to was medical benefits without marriage.

They should, as couples, be given the same access to a civil legal binding that all citizens get. or NO citizens should get it and no benefits should be recognized by states/federal government for marriage. Either it is a religious institution alone, or it is a civil institution. If it's civil, well everybody gets it and people can suck it

Sorcha Griannon
08-07-2010, 05:38 PM
I am so happy to hear this, but we will see how things go from here. When marriages are allowed again, I'm definitely going to put my name out there to officiate for free for the first week or two.

Mistress Morigianna
08-07-2010, 07:57 PM
I am so happy- we will drag everyone into the 21st century... (kicking & screaming- some of them)


I have been told- hey they showed the thoughts with the vote...but they forget that prop 8 was to overturn a prievious vote that allowed gay marraige...You can't just keep voting on civil rights till you get what you want! There was also issues whether everyone who voted on on that one was even from Calif. For example it has been put that mormans used various ways to register extra votes and such.

My favorite stupidity is now they are saying the judge should be impeached because he is gay himself- GEEZE

Cyranno DeBoberac
08-10-2010, 02:14 AM
"It's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions that appeal to people's fear and prejudice, [and] cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what you say they do.

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination, and what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to [marry] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

"That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost."

-- David Boies, one of the lead attorneys in the lawsuit against Proposition 8.

Cyranno DeBoberac
08-10-2010, 02:18 AM
And here's some video of one of the other lead attorneys for in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, Ted Olson, completely pwning Fox "News" d-bag, Chris Wallace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE

Ted Olson, by the way, was the lead attorney for the Dark Side in the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court in 2000. Redemption stories are a wonderful thing.

Ysobelle
08-10-2010, 03:38 AM
This was my favourite comment. Nice and succinct:

Samuel_Seaborn: #Prop8 backers say today's ruling overturns the will of the people. Remember, the Civil Rights Act did that in a lot of places, too.

Cyranno DeBoberac
08-11-2010, 01:19 AM
This was my favourite comment. Nice and succinct:

Samuel_Seaborn: #Prop8 backers say today's ruling overturns the will of the people. Remember, the Civil Rights Act did that in a lot of places, too.

I'm pretty sure Prop8 backers were none to pleased with that either....

LissaRoisin
08-12-2010, 11:25 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38671236/ns/us_news-life/

On Thursday, Walker then ruled that same-sex couples could begin marrying next Wednesday unless the appeals court steps in.

Ysobelle
08-13-2010, 02:54 AM
And if anyone starts ranting that gay marriages destroys hetero marriages, ask them how all the same-sex couples married in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden have affected them. Ask for specific examples. It'll make them nuts.

Oh, wait-- they already were.

Azura
08-16-2010, 10:19 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-same-sex,0,1680572.story

According to this, it is indeed being appealed and homosexuals are being held from getting married at least until it gets sorted out. :augh:

The 6th Rogue
08-17-2010, 12:02 AM
Let 'em think they're getting what they want and then tie it all up in the courts and make a big show of how it's almost here. Same old game.

Bronya
08-17-2010, 11:57 AM
Possibly, maybe in December they said last night. This is such crap. I have lived in Ca my entire lifre and have never been more embarrassed to live here than I do right now.

Azura
08-17-2010, 08:08 PM
Possibly, maybe in December they said last night. This is such crap. I have lived in Ca my entire lifre and have never been more embarrassed to live here than I do right now.

The hearings will start in early December, but you know how courts go. A "decision" won't be made until several months later.

ShadowHawke
08-18-2010, 12:24 PM
Azura: A "decision" won't be made until several months later.
Like the 12th... of NEVER! Why can't the politians/regilious groups leave people alone to be happy. I can't see any one argument made that made any sense as to why two people... regardless of genders, marry and be together and be happy... and not get harrassed to death about it. It's not any of the politians/religious fanatics business what goes on in someone's homes. I really hate hearing the fighting continues and more waiting looms ahead. :irked:

- ShadowHawke -

daBaroness
08-18-2010, 04:18 PM
I said this wasn't over and sadly, it won't be for some time. I hope no one expected that the opponents of same-sex marriage were just going to let this go on the word of one judge. It's OK - sooner or later, it WILL happen!

Gemdrite
08-18-2010, 09:18 PM
I said this wasn't over and sadly, it won't be for some time. I hope no one expected that the opponents of same-sex marriage were just going to let this go on the word of one judge. It's OK - sooner or later, it WILL happen!
I was thinking the same thing. I voted no, I was glad when the judge overturned it, but I knew the fight wasn't over, I knew it would get appealed. I didn't get too excited, yet. In my lifetime, it will change. I know that. But I knew it wasn't quite now. Soon, I hope.

Cyranno DeBoberac
08-18-2010, 10:16 PM
I was thinking the same thing. I voted no, I was glad when the judge overturned it, but I knew the fight wasn't over, I knew it would get appealed. I didn't get too excited, yet. In my lifetime, it will change. I know that. But I knew it wasn't quite now. Soon, I hope.

If you're in favor of gay marriage, you actually should want the ruling to be appealed. As it stands now, the ruling only affects gay marriage in California.

If it is appealed and upheld by the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals, it will then affect the entire Ninth Circuit (California, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington State, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam).

If it is appealed again and upheld by the Supreme Court, it will then affect the entire country.

Other districts in a Circuit are not bound by the ruling of a regular Circuit judge, but they are all bound by a ruling of their Circuit's Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Courts in Circuits in the country are not bound by the ruling of a regular judge in a different Circuit, nor the Court of Appeals of another Circuit; they are only bound by rulings by the Supreme Court.

So, the farther up the chain it goes, more jurisdictions will get bound by it.


The bad news is that the appeal might not get heard after all. There appears to be some question as to whether or not the people filing the appeal actually have standing to do so. If they are found to not have standing, then the ruling in the main case will only affect California (and possibly even only part of California, since the Ninth Circuit actually divides CA up into four seperate districts).