Prop 8 Struck Down
Proposition 8, a California voter-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriage, has been struck down by a federal judge.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial
Steffy
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 62
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
JSchoolboy
Blue Jay
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: Southern California, USA
From the MSN story:
The judge added in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
I live in California, and the only argument I consistently saw from Prop 8 supporters was variations on "My bible says it's bad." In addition to the issue of separation of church and state, I've kept thinking that that is not, in any sense, an argument based on reason.
I don't know how this case will fare in the US Supreme court, if it goes there, but at least for today we have a victory of reason over superstition. I suppose it would be polite to add "IMHO" here, but no. I don't feel at all like being polite about this issue.
JSB
From my perspective, the 9th Circuit is a slam-dunk to uphold the decision. The 9th Circuit is probably the most 'liberal' of the Federal Court's circuits.
As for the Supremes, I think it will also be a one sided decision. The opponents of same-sex marriage have two huge obstacles to overcome:
"Full faith and credit"
The California litigation will probably get heard alongside the Massachusetts litigation which touches directly on DOMA and full faith and credit.
The Supremes don't dare mess with this one. There are too many commercial interests at stake. After all the same provision that guarantees that a quickie Nevada divorce gets recognized in every state is the same provision that guarantees that DuPont's Delaware incorporation is recognized in every state. If they start drawing fences around full faith and credit the potential implications are enormous.
States rights
The conservatives on the USSC are strong decentralists. Ironically, that is going to work against the opponents of same-sex marriage, because the decisions in those states that have allowed for same-sex marriage should not be undone by those states which fail to adhere to full faith and credit.
While it is possible that the Supremes would only overturn state constitutions on the issue of recognition of marriages performed in other states, the reality is that the state constitutional bans on celebration of same sex marriages would be rendered meaningless. I suspect that the Court would not hold back in that circumstance.
_________________
--James
I have no interest or opinion in prop 8, but the words SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE are found nowhere in the United States constitution. That's a media myth.
The constitution only stipulates that the US Government cannot establish a church of its own, or endorse one over all others - one CHURCH, not one RELIGION. Our founding fathers were abundantly clear on which RELIGION they favored and which religion's God and Values their entire system of government was being centered upon philosophically.
I don't endorse a specific religion, but they absolutely DID, and expected the government they were creating to be operated on principles and values as outlined and embodied in that specific faith. Any change made in national philosophy since then is at complete odds with what the founders intended. They were Deists, not Materialists.
thechadmaster
Veteran
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,126
Location: On The Road...Somewhere
This is a blow to the constitution. Prop 8 was voted on by the people, the people said no gay marriage. I did not vote for obama, does that mean i can go to court and have him thrown out of the white house?
God Help California, you're gonna need it. And like Willard said, the constitution ONLY prohibits a state church, it does not reject church influence on government.
There should be no appeal of the voters decision, this is not what i consider "government by the people of the people or for the people" this is government trampling on the democratic process that it agreed to.
TO ADD: This case should not have been handled by this judge, as an openly gay judge, his opinion was influenced by the fact that he is gay.
_________________
I don't know what the future holds, but I know Who holds the future.
Chadmaster, would you support a vote by, say, the people of South Carolina to reinstitute slavery, in defiance of the 13th and 14th Amendments, because the Constitution's framers owned slaves? After all, "the people" would have voted for it...
Would you permit your local government to strip you of your right to bear arms, or your right to free association, simply because better than 50% of your fellow citizens voted for it?
As for "the separation of church and state", that phrase comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who was assuring a church in New Hampshire that such a wall was in fact created by the new Constitution. Do you presume to know Jefferson's intent better than Jefferson?
(Interestingly, the church in New Hampshire wanted such a wall to exist to protect them from government interference. Claiming the wall does not exist, claiming that the First Amendment should be interpreted according to a 21st Century usage of the words, leaves state governments at liberty to interfere with all manner of church matters, from denying the Trinity to enforcing strict compliance with all 606 commandments of Orthodox Judaism. Never forget that restrictions on government action are there for your protection, not just to make things more "liberal".)
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.
I think that if the USSC strikes down Prop 8, that California should invoke states' rights and secede. After all, we produce much of the nation's agricultural output, and have virtually all of the high tech, we are quite capable of going it alone. Simply blow up DC with a big nuke and the troops sent to put down the rebellion would have no clue what to do. Let's bring on Civil War 2, and this time get the correct result.
From the MSN article.
*sarcasum* Sure, dude. Nature herself invented human only ceremonies, not humans themselves.
Listen up, whipper snappers! Back in my day they said "Our nation was founded on God!" Now they are telling you it was founded on weddings. You better learn some history, kids!
I can smell the win in their argument already. Old strategy really works! *end sarcasum*
Just saying. Honestly, religion keeps being shoved into the matter, despite there being different religions and their ceremonies. It's not equal to treat one more important than the other.
I get annoyed by how some conservatives keep using the argument that if gay people can marry it'll infringe on the ability of straight people to marry. It's just utter BS. Either that or they try to use the religious based excuse of it being a sin... which shouldn't be legislated anyway.
_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors
Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/
"Separation of church and state" vis-a-vis the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is indeed codified in law, at least for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
cyberscan
Veteran
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida
Whether gay or straight, we should, as a people, call for impeachment and jailing of this person who decided to use his power overrule the vote of over seven million people. What this man has done is impose his views over the rule of law. The ban was vetted as constitutional before it even went to the ballot. It was further ruled constitutional after it passed.
What this means is that our votes NO LONGER COUNT. The only thing this does is PROVE that we no longer live in a republic or even a democracy. We live in a dictatorship. Karl Marx would be proud.
If this same judge ruled that a state law prohibiting torture was unconstitutional, it would be no different than what was done today. We are no longer a nation ruled by law, we are ruled rather by fiat from men with power. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers worked so hard to prevent when they drafted the Constitution. This man is an enemy of this country, its laws, and its people. As a clear and present danger to this country, he has no business heading a court or being any any official position of power. It is the duty of members of the military, police, or any political figure who swears the oath of allegiance to the constitution to remove this man from office.
If the federal, state, or local government wanted the ability to walk into or monitor every bedroom in order to catch certain people in the act of sex, I would be totally against this as well. However, the precedent has been set. If the government can override the vote of 7 million people on constitutional legislation, what is to stop them from effectively declaring all homosexuals, church people, evolutionists, heterosexuals, etc. illegal? Nothing, that is what. The question is not whether gay marriage should be illegal but rather whether a single government official should have the power to overrule the vote of the people in deciding how to handle their affairs.
_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."
Last edited by cyberscan on 04 Aug 2010, 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All this because you believe a mere majority has the right to dictate what consenting adults can and cannot do?
All this because the ONLY argument (unlike the arguments prolifers lifers use to support their positions) gay marriage opponents have is that gay marriage is against their religion?