Prop 8 Overturned

[injury]

From the LA Times:

 

 

 

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

 

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

 

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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 Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

 

[updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.

 

“This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, minutes after Walker’s ruling was released. “From the start, this has been about basic fairness.”

 

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Prop 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”]

 

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

 

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

 

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

 

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

 

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

 

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

 

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

 

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

 

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

 

Thoughts?

Witholding mine until there are some responses.

[christo-f]

I'll never understand why straight people care so much about what gay people do.

 

I'm way too busy and interested in what I'm doing to worry about what other people are doing.

 

I just don't get why people care so much when it doesn't have anything to do with them; "This is what I believe, everybody else should too. If they don't, I'm going to spend my time worrying about it!".

 

 

 

 

Small lives.

[Spitfire15]

I think you're quality of life would be probably be better if you get adopted by Mike and Mark then being stuck in a fucking orphanage or living with your shitty parents who cant raise you.

 

Family values fail.

[christo-f]

You're pissing up the wrong tree, mate.

 

Religion is not based on rationality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And anyone who tries to say that homosexuality is not natural has missed the fact that there are hundreds of millions of gay people in the world. Shit, if dogs naturally adopt orphaned baby cats I'm happy to say that there is nothing unnatural about Adam and Steve having nurturing motivations and drives towards a human child.

 

There's that rational argument thing again....

[shai]

The passing of Prop 8 made me ashamed to be from California.

 

Collectively we should be working on stuff like flying cars and transporter beams and not trying to pigeonhole the definition of marriage. I don't understand the argument that same-sex marriage somehow lessens or denigrates what the institution of marriage is, but that's probably due to my profound lack of faith in what Christianity supposedly represents.

 

I actually like Christians, the real ones at least. They don't get hung up on absolutes. Fanatics of any type just piss me off.

[Decyferon]

I have no problem with gay marriage or gay couples raising children, the fact that people get so angry about it just seems ridiculous to me.

 

I don't think straight people have any claim to be better parents, 99.9% of the fuck ups on this planet come from straight backgrounds or broken families.

 

All that matters to a child is that they are cared for and loved. Gay people should have the exact same rights to marry divorce and screw their own lives up as straight people do.

 

It is about time that the church realises that it plays no part in modern society and that it should just shut it's fucking mouth and not get involved in anything, let it's followers go to their churches but there should be laws that stop the church having any kind of say in modern life.

 

Easiest rational I use with dirty christians is that god created man in his own image therefore god is a bisexual pervert that takes it anyway that comes (I only use this when aiming to offend ignorant fuckwits)

[shai]

This also gets into some interesting issues surrounding the division between church and state.

 

Marriage by definition under the state's terms is a legally recognized (and thus legally binding) civil union. It confers somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand rights and benefits that people who are simply cohabiting (aka shacking up) do not have.

 

Here's another way to look at it. A gay couple has been together for years. One of them has AIDS and no surviving immediate family. Under current law his partner has no legal recognition and has no say over what kind of treatment or care he recieves, it's left to the state to decide.

[Decyferon]

So where do people stand in common law partnerships of the different sex, so they aren't married?

 

Over here if you have been with someone for a decent amount of time your are considered common law partners and you end up having rights if the relationship ends, like with a marriage ending. Obviously you don't have the same legal ramifications but you do have more rights that just a boyfriend/girlfriend scenario.

[Joker]

Bottom line, for me, is that love... true love, is incredibly difficult to find. If two people are ga-ga for one another and want to marry why would anyone stand in their way, gay or straight. I hear all these wack-a-doodle arguments from people, religious people, saying the sanctity of marriage is in jeopardy if we allow gays to wed. Hmmm... not sure if these folks are doing any research on the subject but lets just have a look:

 

The marriage rate has fallen more than 30% since 1970

The divorce rate has increased more than 40% (some say closer to 50%) since 1970

60% of all opposite-sex marriages end in divorce within a decade... 80% in the first twenty years

It is also widely believed that childlessness is a major cause of divorce.

 

Not the most intriguing data but it somewhat illustrates that opposite-sex marriage isn't this amazing institution that a lot of folks claim it to be. Again, love is hard enough that if you find it and you know it to be true... then who are we stand in your way?

 

Besides... maybe if we allow gays to marry those nasty tux shops will be replaced with nice tux shops that rent decent clothes. Yeah, there might be a rainbow tux or two but you can pass that up for the Hugo Boss or John Varvatos one. Just sayin'...

[injury]

Like many people have said, gay marriage doesn't scare me, and isn't really of interest to me in this case. I'm catholic, and while the extremist-fanatic branch of my faith gets the most coverage, there are less retarded catholics too. The case of california passing (and overturning) prop 8 isn't especially important to me, either. I have some faith in the referendum system but don't know enough about it to make any sort of a ruling.

 

What does interest me, however, is a judge overruling a referendum, especially this judge. The fact that he's openly gay seems to be a conflict of interest, at least for me. it also seems to raise a lot of questions.

 

Who else is fine with a judge (A judge at his level, that is - a district chief) overruling something like a state law? Is it state responsibility for state laws? Federal?

[Spitfire15]

Not if the law, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[christo-f]

I'm not completely familiar with the US constitution but if it is anything like ours, which I believe it is, you can have any kind of referendum you want but if it contravenes the constitution then it is out the window.

 

The con. is the highest law in the land and in my country at least that can only be changed by a referendum that has a majority of people in the majority of states voting to change it. Until that happens it remains the highest law in the land regardless of what any one does.

 

 

 

 

*awaits the libertarian war cry.....

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

This nonsense shouldn't even be an issue.

 

*ANSWERS THE WARCRY!

[shai]

Vaughn Walker is gay? I did not know this and I'm reasonably familiar with the backgrounds of most of the judges in SF and Oakland.

 

Not that that's necessarily an issue, if he's doing his job right. Contrary to what some of you might think judges legislating from the bench here is pretty unusual.

[fat ralphy]

I'll never understand why straight people care so much about what gay people do.

 

I'm way too busy and interested in what I'm doing to worry about what other people are doing.

 

I just don't get why people care so much when it doesn't have anything to do with them; "This is what I believe, everybody else should too. If they don't, I'm going to spend my time worrying about it!".

 

 

 

 

Small lives.

 

This.

 

It took me a long time to become a tolerant person, after being raised by a bigot of a father. Best thing I ever did was become accepting of other people (dumb asses not included).

[fat ralphy]

Also im proud of the posts in this thread, nice to see that crossfire is still functioing at the highest possible level oooontz is capable of.

 

On the church and state issue, there has never really been a true separation, religious undertones have always affected elections and various lobbyists etc. From kennedy to Obama.....and long before.

[Soup]

I wish it was still the early-years in America, so I could still call the people who passed Prop 8 "Puritans", because that's what they are. At least back then there was a separation of church and state, so much so Massachusetts could pass a law allowing gay marriage.... not because they gave a shit about gay rights, but just to say "fuck you!" to the crazy witch/gay burning pilgrims.

 

Here's my favorite reason why prop 8 was passed:

-If gays can marry, soon people will start marrying raccoons and toasters.

 

First of all, sane people dont marry the things they just fuck. Women dont marry shower heads and men dont marry hookers. The only way anybody is going to marry a toaster is if they feel a strong bond to the toaster; They have to feel like the toaster gets them in ways no human or other inanimate object ever could. In laments terms, a kook: a harmless human with some irreversible psychotic disorders including schizophrenia and whatever else with a brain hardwired to only feel love towards an inanimate object. There would be so few of these people in the world that they'd make international headlines anytime one was discovered. It would be rarer than international news of some british guy who fucks cars, because even he wouldnt marry them. It's illegal for him to marry his cars in Britain. Not because they're cars, but because it would be polygamy, and he never felt that kind of connection to only one.

[christo-f]

Who gives a fuck if some one wants to marry a toaster anyway?

 

Seriously, why does that shit matter to anyone else in the first place?

 

 

People are so strangely fucked.

[Soup]

My interpretation is that Religious people figure everyone is out to get them and their religious beliefs. These people "know" god hates gay people and has sent them all to hell, so gay people have no reason NOT to hate god. Therefore, the only reason gay people would want to get married is to attack churchgoing people and their gay-bashing god. Soon after, athiests would marry toasters and other shit just to make a mockery of religious people and their beliefs.

 

 

Basically, they think gay marriage is all about them since they think marriage is an institution of their gay-bashing god. If you want to legalize gay marriage, you have to do a few things:

 

1. convince the church that genetics are god's will, and not a blasphemous concept against religion.

This shouldnt be SO hard since last year the vatican even accepted evolution and has stated it's part of god's will.

 

2. Bring people to the realization that homosexuality is genetic and is just as much "god's will" as double jointed thumbs.

 

3. Make religious people realize that homosexuality cant be "cleansed" from the genepool. It's a natural genetic phenomena that just pops up in everybody's family tree from time to time. Like albinism. Killing every albino in your family doesnt protect your genepool from it happening again, so theres no point in shunning, killing, or being mean to them.

 

4. Make people realize that homosexuals embrace marriage just as much as straight people, but just under these newfound concepts and not the old puritanical bullshit concepts.

 

 

After that you might be able to convince the church that skitzophrenia is also genetic and "god's will" and therefor marrying a toaster isn't necessarily sacrilegious either.

[KM4RT]

The laws are archaic.

A senate candidate here tweeted something about equating gay relationships to legalising child abuse.

 

It will be a difficult issue to handle politically for some time to come I think. They will always be wary of offending large groups of conservative voters. And we know politics is as much about staying in power as it is about the country and its people.

[christo-f]

Yeah, she's blaming that on a staff member.

 

Apparently some staff member knew here twitter acct/PW and her FB acct/PW and went on there and did it without her permission.

 

 

 

You believe her...., right?

[angelofdeath]

I'm not completely familiar with the US constitution but if it is anything like ours, which I believe it is, you can have any kind of referendum you want but if it contravenes the constitution then it is out the window.

 

The con. is the highest law in the land and in my country at least that can only be changed by a referendum that has a majority of people in the majority of states voting to change it. Until that happens it remains the highest law in the land regardless of what any one does.

 

 

 

 

*awaits the libertarian war cry.....

 

you are basically correct in this.

 

although i think what you are trying to allude to is that the 'right to marry' is a right protected by the federal government's constitution or listed in the bill of rights. it is not. the feds have no say in marriage whatsoever

 

ilots pretty much nailed it... this shouldnt even be an issue because marriage should be privatized. then the catholic church will not marry 'teh gayz' and the 'teh gayz' church will only marry 2 women or two men. that is the way it should be.

 

there are two mistakes on this issue on both sides. 1. right wing says gays cant marry. 2. lefties want the state to legitimize something that traditionally has never existed.

the answer of course is to cease state monopoly marriage license and as uncle mao said...'let 1000 flowers bloom....'

 

this aside....

the court was wrong to strike down this law. it has no legal authority to do this. there is no authority for the federal government to regulate marriage in the constitution any more than there is authority for the federal government to strike down marriage laws in germany. this issue is to be decided by californians. if they want to solve this problem all together, they would repeal all laws regulating contracts between consenting adults, religious or otherwise.

[christo-f]

Fair enough. Marriage law is a constitutional law in Australia.

 

 

And just to be a pedantic arsehole, Mao didn't say that. He said

 

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."

 

He was encouraging the academics/intelligensia of China to put their opinion forward on the "new China" in 1957. After they did, he killed them.

 

 

 

So I'm not really getting your Mao reference here, dude! :)

[Soup]

Although "privatization" of marriage would solve the problem, that solution is far more political than it is ethical. Segregation is segregation. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry in the same churches by the same ministers under the same god and so on.

 

And for what its worth, if you're homophobic, a gay married couple is far less scary than a single gay dude on the prowl. It also gives gay and straight people something in common. It institutionalizes what is acceptable pair-bonding in the exact same way for gay and straight people. Maybe then all the stupid fucking fettishist stores in san francisco would disappear. If being gay was equally accepted, there wouldnt be anything to rub in society's face.

[christo-f]

I disagree with one part of that, Soup.

 

I don't agree that teh gayz should be able to get married by ministers in a church, if the church don't want them to. Religion is a private club and they should be able to make up their own rules as long as any rules (like all that kiddy fiddling they seem to prone to) they make don't harm anyone else.

 

The issue of gay marraige isn't just an ethical thing but a legal issue. There are certain rights that legally married people have access to that non-married couples don't. Shit like access to superannuation of their partner should they die and stuff like that. It's the legal recognition that most gays that I know are looking for. I don't think I know any gays that have any religious leanings at all and I'm pretty sure they would prefer to use a legal celebrant anyway.

 

Just the same, adoption is another separate issue, this is simply legal recognition of the partnership. IF they church don't want them, they shouldn't be forced to take them. However they should still be legally recognised as a married partner in the eyes of the law. Shit, I'm organising my wedding soon and I sure as fuck won't be doing it in a church. It will be on a beach south of Sydney in board shorts, tank top by the side of the BBQ, mate!!

[angelofdeath]

Although "privatization" of marriage would solve the problem, that solution is far more political than it is ethical. Segregation is segregation. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry in the same churches by the same ministers under the same god and so on.

 

And for what its worth, if you're homophobic, a gay married couple is far less scary than a single gay dude on the prowl. It also gives gay and straight people something in common. It institutionalizes what is acceptable pair-bonding in the exact same way for gay and straight people. Maybe then all the stupid fucking fettishist stores in san francisco would disappear. If being gay was equally accepted, there wouldnt be anything to rub in society's face.

 

i could care less about the arguments put forth by the left and right, such as the 'practical' arguments in the second part of your post. i am only interested in rights and liberty, not in some sort of pragmatic arguments to justify a position.

 

the first part of your post concerns me. it is a scary totalitarian mindset you have there my friend.

what you are suggesting is forced integration! this is not compatible with a free society. while in a free society you must be tolerate of a gay person or a straight person so long as they commit no aggression against you, forcing anyone to associate with others is not compatible. you have no right whatsoever to FORCE a gay church to marry a straight couple anymore than you have the right to force a church that is against homosexuality like the catholic church to marry a gay couple. this is a 100% direct violation of the freedom of religion and violates basic natural law... a peoples right to freely associate.

 

if you can then force a private institution to do something they dont like... can i also force you to house neo nazi's at your next bbq? we must all be 'equal' and understanding, right? can i force the entire black panther party to attend a kkk bbq? can we force jews to be marry as jews would at a jewish place of worship? can we force force girls to be allowed in the boy scouts? can we force the various womens clubs around the country to allow men to join? should we force the vfw and american legion to allow non veterans? where do you draw the line, bro?

 

we 'discriminate' every day. its called 'choice.' do you realize that you unjustly discriminated against entire races of people when you chose a girlfriend of the race that you did?

 

but back on topic... this is the beauty of privatization. there are plenty of churches that worship God, and will marry homosexual couples. but instead of leaving it at that, you feel the need to force your set of standards on the entire known world and force people to associate with people who they may or may not like and in this case, where it is against their religion, to marry said couples.

 

at least you came right out with the red ideology and the idea of using govt force to foist your will upon everyone in the name of 'egalitarianism.'

 

 

and holy shit balls... christo and myself finally agree on something 100%.

[angelofdeath]

Fair enough. Marriage law is a constitutional law in Australia.

 

 

And just to be a pedantic arsehole, Mao didn't say that. He said

 

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."

 

He was encouraging the academics/intelligensia of China to put their opinion forward on the "new China" in 1957. After they did, he killed them.

 

 

 

So I'm not really getting your Mao reference here, dude! :)

 

 

no deep meaning to my mao quote... i was merely trying to say in a half comical way that we need to 'let 1000 flowers bloom.' meaning let different churches marry who they want, when they want, etc.

[christo-f]

and holy shit balls... christo and myself finally agree on something 100%.

 

Ha, you'd be surprised at how much of the fundamentals we actually agree on. I just think that the "extreme" ends that your position goes to, whilst ethically and morally respectable are practically unworkable. Speaking of which I will reply to your thoughts on the ownership of property, I just need the motivation for it and that will come.

 

Anyway, back to Adam and Steve.....

[angelofdeath]

no worries on the other thread.... i dont think i'd have the motivation to reply....haha

[Soup]

The second paragraph wasn't anything directed towards anyone specifically. It was just an observation I've made while living in the bay area.

 

And I dont even know where you got "totalitarian." Multisyllabic, yes, accurate description, no. I guess its just because I live in gaytown USA that I know most gay married couples are very likeminded to straight married couples when it comes to family values. They all belong in the same church where they can discuss their community together and work on civil rights as a unit. That's what town church is for.