Proposition 8 Overturned

[Saya]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_670739.html

SAN FRANCISCO — A person close to the case says a federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

A copy of the ruling had not yet been publicly released.

Both sides previously 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.

To the Supreme Court, huzzah!

But seriously, cracking out the booze to celebrate.

[JCC]

Awesome news.

[Ráskógr]

Good news. All the extreme religious right wing websites are absolutely mum today regarding Judge Walker's decision, which is due to be released tomorrow. Rumor has it the right wingers have already file petition for a stay on appeal, so everyone knows they already know the outcome.

Cowards ...

[Breathless Horror]

Props to the judge. Good to see people still have rights every now and again.

[HumanePain]

I normally do not like Judges legislating from the bench, but in this case I enthusiastically approve. Weddings should be for everyone, not just some.

My Aunt in San Diego and her love of many years will be hopefully tying the knot soon! It shall be grand.

[Breathless Horror]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I normally do not like Judges legislating from the bench, but in this case I enthusiastically approve.

Very true, but it is nice that someone can stand up when the people themselves are attempting to take the rights of others and say "fuck you, no."

[d0p3y]

A win for everyone who loves freedom. ^__^

[blu]

Excellent news!

Sometimes I wonder if these people will ever quit trying to dictate other people's lives and simply be content with their own.

Unlikely.

[Ráskógr]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I normally do not like Judges legislating from the bench, but in this case I enthusiastically approve. Weddings should be for everyone, not just some.

My Aunt in San Diego and her love of many years will be hopefully tying the knot soon! It shall be grand.

This is EXACTLY what the courts and judges are supposed to do. Take a law. Compare the law to the Constitution. Strike the law down if incompatible.

That's not legislating, from the bench or anywhere else.

"Legislating from the bench" is a tired old cliche. It's a phrase which was propagated by the right wing, which people should retire from use.

[Saya]

I'm reading comments on an article on another site and its hilarious how the conservatives are throwing a hissy fit.

[MollyMac]

"Not for long"... sneers Sarah Palin, rubbing her little hands greedily. "I will make things even more unequalified. I will take us so far back in that I will render my own presidential bid unconstitutional and get my ass back into the kitchen and cook up some Inuit."

[Saya]

^ Did you know Bristol's baby daddy posed for Playgirl? Has anyone told him or the Palins that its a gay magazine?

Apparently they're not going to get married and teach us all about the sanctity of marriage and abstinence.

[Breathless Horror]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justbeta/3010014488/

This guy is full of win!

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Ráskógr

This is EXACTLY what the courts and judges are supposed to do. Take a law. Compare the law to the Constitution. Strike the law down if incompatible.

That's not legislating, from the bench or anywhere else.

"Legislating from the bench" is a tired old cliche. It's a phrase which was propagated by the right wing, which people should retire from use.

I'm a bit confused though, sure judges are supposed to uphold the constitution and stop unjust laws. But usually those laws are passed by representatives, not through a direct vote by the people. The constitution is supposed to serve the people, and in this case, as right as it may be, it is being used to defy the will of most of the people.
Can somone explain this one to me? because frankly there arnt many examples of the constitution being used to take down a law that was voted in directly by the people that I can think of.

[Saya]

If any law violates someone's rights, its overturned by the courts. In this case its protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority. If a state managed to pass a law saying all black men cannot vote, for example, that would be thrown out right away, even if it was a direct vote because you can't vote against the constitution and take someone's rights away. You can read the full Prop 8 ruling here:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you...n-is-here.html

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

[CptSternn]

What makes this case particularly brilliant is that the Judge, Walker, who decided this case and made the brilliant statements was one of those judges that was appointed by gw bush during his attempt to pack Federal courts with right-wing judges to stop 'liberal activist judges' from changing the laws he put in place.

Seems that even the far right judges can't help from leaning away from some of the republican legislation these days.

On a sad note, check the article on Yahoo News:

http://tinyurl.com/33s7ekv

It's a brilliant article, but look at the almost twenty THOUSAND of comments under the article - pretty much all bigoted hate slurs.

It's pretty much the same on the Arizona issue as well.

Looks like a large chunk of America hates non-whites and homosexuals.

Remember when there a name for those sorts? Today they seem to just be called 'republicans'.

[Ráskógr]

Originally Posted by Renatus

I'm a bit confused though, sure judges are supposed to uphold the constitution and stop unjust laws. But usually those laws are passed by representatives, not through a direct vote by the people. The constitution is supposed to serve the people, and in this case, as right as it may be, it is being used to defy the will of most of the people.
Can somone explain this one to me? because frankly there arnt many examples of the constitution being used to take down a law that was voted in directly by the people that I can think of.

Saya says it well. The Constitution is not about protecting the tyranny of the majority, it is about protecting the individual. As difficult as it is for some to accept, California's legal system, which allows something like this challenge to both state legislation and a previous CA justice system ruling, to be overturned by a popular vote, is intrinsically flawed. In instances such as this, the Constitution of the United States, which protects individual freedom, is the supreme authority over states.

We are a democracy only in the sense that we elect our representatives by majority vote. In reality, the United States is ultimately a Constitutional Republic ruled and governed by law, not the majority of the people.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Ráskógr

This is EXACTLY what the courts and judges are supposed to do. Take a law. Compare the law to the Constitution. Strike the law down if incompatible.

That's not legislating, from the bench or anywhere else.

"Legislating from the bench" is a tired old cliche. It's a phrase which was propagated by the right wing, which people should retire from use.

I understand. My perspective is that The People pass a law in the voting booth. The Will of The People has spoken and should be respected, and to have one person, one judge invalidate millions of voters renders democracy impotent. Judges should interpret the law, especially in cases where the fine line is a gray area, but should not make a habit of throwing out laws, because then chaos, not democracy rules.

But in this case it was sweet irony that it did, for the masses were indeed asses in regards to Prop 8.

And just FYI, I did not use the phrase because I am right wing. I am NOT right wing. :snort:

[Ráskógr]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I understand. My perspective is that The People pass a law in the voting booth. The Will of The People has spoken and should be respected, and to have one person, one judge invalidate millions of voters renders democracy impotent. Judges should interpret the law, especially in cases where the fine line is a gray area, but should not make a habit of throwing out laws, because then chaos, not democracy rules.

But in this case it was sweet irony that it did, for the masses were indeed asses in regards to Prop 8.

And just FYI, I did not use the phrase because I am right wing. I am NOT right wing. :snort:

No need to snort, I'm with you.

See the previous posts by Saya and myself. The reality is, the people of California, by voting in Prop 8, did exactly what you say shouldn't happen, i.e. they threw out a law and a CA Supreme Court ruling which said marriage between consenting adults, regardless of gender, and with very few equally applied exceptions (blood relations, for instance), is legal.

Democracy, when it allows tyranny of the majority, is chaos. For valuable insight into this phenomenon, see: French Revolution, The Reign of Terror.

[Tam Li Hua]

Yay, I guess

Though I've known of some homosexuals who still had weddings and considered themselves married, just without the legal benefits.

[Ráskógr]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Yay, I guess

Though I've known of some homosexuals who still had weddings and considered themselves married, just without the legal benefits.

But those homosexuals weren't married according to law. We're not talking here about weddings, that's just a ceremony; we're talking about the legal bond of marriage. Why should a gay or lesbian be denied the same benefits, responsibilities and protections afforded heterosexuals, by law? There are over eleven hundred stipulations of the law which can be exercised by married couples which are denied unmarried gay and lesbian couples. That is invidious discrimination based in heterocentric dogma, plain and simple; it doesn't require any guessing.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Ráskógr

Why should a gay or lesbian be denied the same benefits, responsibilities and protections afforded heterosexuals, by law.

If they want to be miserable just like the rest of us, then who am I to stand in their way?

[Ráskógr]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

If they want to be miserable just like the rest of us, then who am I to stand in their way?

It never fails that someone finds it necessary to toss this "misery" canard into the conversation. If your marriage is miserable, I pity you, but in casting aspersion on existing marriage you degrade yourself and your own ability to properly function in a mutual relationship, not on others' ability to do so.

The landmark case, Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which struck down anti-miscegenation statutes across the United States will also be the hallmark by which this issue will be decided. Here is Mildred Loving's last official statement in support of marriage for gays and lesbians. I think they bear repeating concerning the current topic, for the benefit of those who may not be familiar.

Mildred said she considered her marriage and the court decision to be God's work. She supported everyone's right to marry whoever he or she wished, and expressed support for same-sex marriage. In 1965, when the case was pending, she told the Washington Evening Star, "We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants." On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision.

Her statement concluded:

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Thank you, Mrs. Loving. I think that about sums it up.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Yay, I guess

Though I've known of some homosexuals who still had weddings and considered themselves married, just without the legal benefits.

If you are against it, have the balls to say it.

[Tam Li Hua]

Ras: Actually, I was referring loosely to a Lewis Black joke. *shrug* But whatever.

Ophie: I honestly don't care. Do whatever you want.