Prop. 8 Struck Down as Unconstitutional

[Shire5k 19]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life?GT1=43001

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.

A good day, indeed.

[au2004ece 30]

In his decision the judge said:

"THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER..."

Where do people get the idea that everything is a right? Marriage is not a right.

Also, the judge is gay. I wonder if that affected his decision.

He should have recused himself.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker

[TitanTiger 20,538]

If it is a right, then the polygamists, polyamorous and those who engage in incest have just as much right to it as gay people do.

[Aufan59 83]

In his decision the judge said:

"THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER..."

Where do people get the idea that everything is a right? Marriage is not a right.

Also, the judge is gay. I wonder if that affected his decision.

He should have recused himself.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker

Equal protection under the law is a right given to us in the constitution.

If the sex of a person needs to be known in order to determine if they are breaking the law, then it is not equal protection.

[au2004ece 30]

In his decision the judge said:

"THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER..."

Where do people get the idea that everything is a right? Marriage is not a right.

Also, the judge is gay. I wonder if that affected his decision.

He should have recused himself.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker

Equal protection under the law is a right given to us in the constitution.

If the sex of a person needs to be known in order to determine if they are breaking the law, then it is not equal protection.

Then, women should have to register for the draft.

Then, affirmative action laws should not include a preference for women.

Everybody gets the same privilege from our marriage laws. Anybody can marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody can marry a person of the same sex. That is equal protection.

[Aufan59 83]

Then, women should have to register for the draft.

Then, affirmative action laws should not include a preference for women.

I also don't see how the draft or affirmative action laws are constitutional.

Everybody gets the same privilege from our marriage laws. Anybody can marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody can marry a person of the same sex. That is equal protection.

If a man and a woman do the same thing, but it is illegal for one but not the other, then it is not equal protection under the law.

[au2004ece 30]

Then, women should have to register for the draft.

Then, affirmative action laws should not include a preference for women.

I also don't see how the draft or affirmative action laws are constitutional.

Everybody gets the same privilege from our marriage laws. Anybody can marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody can marry a person of the same sex. That is equal protection.

If a man and a woman do the same thing, but it is illegal for one but not the other, then it is not equal protection under the law.

The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

No man and no woman is kept from marriage. So, the marriage law equally protects the ability of both men and women to participate in the privileges defined in the marriage law, but you do have to follow the law to reap the benefits.

The marriage law does not cover anything between two men or two women. If another law did define one of those unions, then no man and no woman would be kept from that union.

[Aufan59 83]

Your argument is like saying banning interracial marriage is constitutional, because it doesn't deny anyone the ability to get married.

You are determining gender in order to enforce the law, thus it isn't equal protection.

[RunInRed 16,527]

The judge is a Bush 1 appointee.

[Grumps 3,705]

The judge is a Bush 1 appointee.

It's all Bush's fault (again)!

[TitanTiger 20,538]

The judge is a Bush 1 appointee.

He never was a good judge of character.

[arnaldoabru 11]

The judge is a Bush 1 appointee.

He never was a good judge of character.

I wonder what Ron Reagan Jr thinks

[BamaGrad03 0]

Interesting that nobody engaged Titan's original point...

[Shire5k 19]

Interesting that nobody engaged Titan's original point...

His "point" was that a monogamous homosexual relationship is like that of a person with more than one spouse/more than one partner/or a person in a relationship with someone in their family. The comparison was patently ridiculous, and didn't need engaging.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

[His "point" was that a monogamous homosexual relationship is like that of a person with more than one spouse/more than one partner/or a person in a relationship with someone in their family. The comparison was patently ridiculous, and didn't need engaging.

No, actually it is not ridiculous and you can't avoid the argument by simply declaring it so. You don't just get to say the other side is stupid and win by default.

What is so sacrosanct about monogamy? If you're willing to redefine marriage to scuttle the opposite sex requirement, why does it have to be limited to only two people?

And if the people involved are consenting adults, why shouldn't a brother and a sister be able to marry one another, particularly if they agree not to have children or are unable to do so (one or both are sterile)? Because you think it's icky?

I didn't say these relationships were identical, but that they are simply another version of "different than" traditional heterosexual marriage. If one can call into question the gender issue, then one can equally question the number or relatives issues. Nothing in the logic that justifies same sex marriage would prohibit either of these scenarios.

[tiger88 934]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life?GT1=43001

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.

A good day, indeed.

Why is it a good day when the people of california are victimized by a judge?

[au2004ece 30]

[His "point" was that a monogamous homosexual relationship is like that of a person with more than one spouse/more than one partner/or a person in a relationship with someone in their family. The comparison was patently ridiculous, and didn't need engaging.

No, actually it is not ridiculous and you can't avoid the argument by simply declaring it so. You don't just get to say the other side is stupid and win by default.

What is so sacrosanct about monogamy? If you're willing to redefine marriage to scuttle the opposite sex requirement, why does it have to be limited to only two people?

And if the people involved are consenting adults, why shouldn't a brother and a sister be able to marry one another, particularly if they agree not to have children or are unable to do so (one or both are sterile)? Because you think it's icky?

I didn't say these relationships were identical, but that they are simply another version of "different than" traditional heterosexual marriage. If one can call into question the gender issue, then one can equally question the number or relatives issues. Nothing in the logic that justifies same sex marriage would prohibit either of these scenarios.

You are right. Words have meaning.

I'm beginning to think it is better for the government to have no dealings with marriages at all. There should be no benefit and no penalty for marriage.

If anything can be called a marriage, then the original cause for providing benefits is no longer applicable.

If we had a flat tax, then this issue wouldn't matter (at least with taxes), because everybody would be treated the same whether they are married or not.

[Shire5k 19]

[His "point" was that a monogamous homosexual relationship is like that of a person with more than one spouse/more than one partner/or a person in a relationship with someone in their family. The comparison was patently ridiculous, and didn't need engaging.

No, actually it is not ridiculous and you can't avoid the argument by simply declaring it so. You don't just get to say the other side is stupid and win by default.

What is so sacrosanct about monogamy? If you're willing to redefine marriage to scuttle the opposite sex requirement, why does it have to be limited to only two people?

And if the people involved are consenting adults, why shouldn't a brother and a sister be able to marry one another, particularly if they agree not to have children or are unable to do so (one or both are sterile)? Because you think it's icky?

I didn't say these relationships were identical, but that they are simply another version of "different than" traditional heterosexual marriage. If one can call into question the gender issue, then one can equally question the number or relatives issues. Nothing in the logic that justifies same sex marriage would prohibit either of these scenarios.

All you're doing is playing a Devil's advocate game with me; taking my inch and making it 1000 miles. That's not an argument. Homosexuals should be able to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. Arguing about what the definition of marriage is so incredibly weak. We all know why you don't want gays to get married. Be upfront about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life?GT1=43001

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.

A good day, indeed.

Why is it a good day when the people of california are victimized by a judge?

A bleeding heart Conservative. Well I never.

[Aufan59 83]

What is so sacrosanct about monogamy? If you're willing to redefine marriage to scuttle the opposite sex requirement, why does it have to be limited to only two people?

The arbitrary number of 2 doesn't discriminate against anyone. And what is wrong with polygamy?

And if the people involved are consenting adults, why shouldn't a brother and a sister be able to marry one another, particularly if they agree not to have children or are unable to do so (one or both are sterile)? Because you think it's icky?

I don't see why not. Incest occurred in the Bible, I don't think it should be illegal.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

All you're doing is playing a Devil's advocate game with me; taking my inch and making it 1000 miles. That's not an argument.

You keep just declaring this by fiat but not proving it. It's a perfectly legitimate argument to make. Just because you think I'm taking it too far does not make it so. Show me a rational argument as to why it's ok to change marriage to drop the opposite sex requirement, but not the numeric requirement or the "non-relative" requirement.

Homosexuals should be able to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals.

As should those who wish to not limit their marital love and commitment to just one other person. Relatives should have the same right.

Arguing about what the definition of marriage is so incredibly weak. We all know why you don't want gays to get married. Be upfront about it.

No, what we all know is why you don't or can't answer the question. It is about the definition of marriage. Again, what is so inviolable about it only being between two individuals? What right do any of us have to tell a brother and sister they cannot experience marital love and societal sanction? How is this not discriminatory?

[TitanTiger 20,538]

The arbitrary number of 2 doesn't discriminate against anyone. And what is wrong with polygamy?

Of course it does. Why shouldn't three women who wish to be married to the same man or a group of 5 people get the same societal sanction and other benefits that homosexual and heterosexual couples enjoy? What legal right do we have to deny them the opportunity to demonstrate their love to the world in this way?

I don't see why not. Incest occurred in the Bible, I don't think it should be illegal.

Great! At least you're honest.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Of course it does. Why shouldn't three women who wish to be married to the same man or a group of 5 people get the same societal sanction and other benefits that homosexual and heterosexual couples enjoy? What legal right do we have to deny them the opportunity to demonstrate their love to the world in this way?

While this is the SAME EXACT wording that pro-gay marriage people make...

They'll tell you in the same breath that polygamy is wrong and incest is wrong. They'll talk about inalienable rights and all that. And how gay marriage ban is denying rights of citizens.

But would TOTALLY support a ban on polygamy or incest.

It makes no sense to me. And I've never in my life heard one be able to articulate why one is not only right - but not even up for discussion - and the other is patently wrong.

[dallaswareagle01 2]

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

[Shire5k 19]

All you're doing is playing a Devil's advocate game with me; taking my inch and making it 1000 miles. That's not an argument.

You keep just declaring this by fiat but not proving it. It's a perfectly legitimate argument to make. Just because you think I'm taking it too far does not make it so. Show me a rational argument as to why it's ok to change marriage to drop the opposite sex requirement, but not the numeric requirement or the "non-relative" requirement.

Homosexuals should be able to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals.

As should those who wish to not limit their marital love and commitment to just one other person. Relatives should have the same right.

Arguing about what the definition of marriage is so incredibly weak. We all know why you don't want gays to get married. Be upfront about it.

No, what we all know is why you don't or can't answer the question. It is about the definition of marriage. Again, what is so inviolable about it only being between two individuals? What right do any of us have to tell a brother and sister they cannot experience marital love and societal sanction? How is this not discriminatory?

Even if I conceded that "Sure, everyone should be able to marry everybody", what would that prove for either of us? The issue isn't polygamy or incest...it's gay marriage.

As far as the definition thing goes, it's just a flimsy argument to hide the fact that Conservatives find homosexuality icky. It's like Bill Clinton arguing about what the definition of "is" is. As long as there are positives aspects of being married to someone and homosexuals aren't able to do so, it's wrong. If it is so much about the definition, let's change it. Then what would your argument be?

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Judges don't always do what's popular. That's just fact. And it's how our country is set up. Sometimes it's for the bad (RE: Bush Jr.), sometimes it's for the good (RE: This situation).

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Even if I conceded that "Sure, everyone should be able to marry everybody", what would that prove for either of us? The issue isn't polygamy or incest...it's gay marriage.

Because for one, it's an issue of honesty about what it is that's happening here. If you're unwilling to sanction other types of marriage in the same way you do gay marriage, the logic of your entire argument collapses.

As far as the definition thing goes, it's just a flimsy argument to hide the fact that Conservatives find homosexuality icky. It's like Bill Clinton arguing about what the definition of "is" is. As long as there are positives aspects of being married to someone and homosexuals aren't able to do so, it's wrong. If it is so much about the definition, let's change it. Then what would your argument be?

No, it's because the definition thing cuts to the core of the logic the gay marriage side uses to justify it being legal. It also calls into question where the redrawing of the line stops? And if it does stop at some arbitrarily defined point, what is your justification for it stopping there and going no further? Ideas have consequences. Follow yours through to their logical ends instead of simply saying "that's ridiculous."