California Judge rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban to be Unconstitutional


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

To be honest, I am surprised:

A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full article here.

The Exchange

Not a surprise here. I think it will go to the supreme court though and very likely overturned. Depending on how it is argued.


joela wrote:

To be honest, I am surprised:

A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full article here.

Prop 8 was just another reminder (as if we needed another) that simple majority is a terrible way to set policy.


Excellent news. Hopefully the Supreme Court doesn't do something stupid.

Dark Archive

ArchLich wrote:
Excellent news. Hopefully the Supreme Court doesn't do something stupid.

Shall we start taking bets...?


joela wrote:
To be honest, I am surprised:

I'm not. The rational case for heterosexuals-only marriage rights does not exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samnell wrote:
I'm not. The rational case for heterosexuals-only marriage rights does not exist.

Then you have far more confidence in the government to act rationally that I do... :P

Scarab Sages

Andy Borowitz | 70% of Existing Marriages May Already Be Gay
MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Just hours after a federal judge struck down California’s ban on gay marriage, a new study revealed that well over seventy percent of existing marriages may already be gay.

The Exchange

grrtigger wrote:

Andy Borowitz | 70% of Existing Marriages May Already Be Gay

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Just hours after a federal judge struck down California’s ban on gay marriage, a new study revealed that well over seventy percent of existing marriages may already be gay.

Oh thats funny............


grrtigger wrote:

Andy Borowitz | 70% of Existing Marriages May Already Be Gay

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Just hours after a federal judge struck down California’s ban on gay marriage, a new study revealed that well over seventy percent of existing marriages may already be gay.

Nice. :)

Scarab Sages

Yeah, Andy Borowitz is usually good for a laugh :)


bugleyman wrote:


Prop 8 was just another reminder (as if we needed another) that simple majority is a terrible way to set policy.

+1

The idea of the Democratic Republic was to vote for things that didn't involve trampling over somebody's rights. The government simply shouldn't have the power to ban gay marriage in the first place, especially when they tie marriage to more rights.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Actually, if you think about it, Judge Walker is following the rule that states should decide the conditions of marriage; in this case, what is legally "marriage" (and what is not) is strictly for California. Remember that not every law is by the will of the majority. Otherwise, California would not be the clean, smog-free state it is now. (Did you think we like our anti-pollution laws?)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

joela wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Actually, if you think about it, Judge Walker is following the rule that states should decide the conditions of marriage; in this case, what is legally "marriage" (and what is not) is strictly for California. Remember that not every law is by the will of the majority. Otherwise, California would not be the clean, smog-free state it is now. (Did you think we like our anti-pollution laws?)

Ok, I'm not following though. California did decide, several times, how the state defined marriage. States vary their definitions all the time. Age of consent in Ohio is 15 for example, while I believe it is 13 in Maryland.

What this judge did is say "You can define marriage, except when I don't like your arguments."

As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.


Sorry, I'm an idiot when it comes to legal matters (and others as well), is the judge saying that the state constitutional ammendment violates the state's constitution or that it violate the federal constitution?


Matthew Morris wrote:
As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.

Well, one could always point to the 9th amendment. Not all rights that exist must be listed specifically in the Constitution.


pres man wrote:
Sorry, I'm an idiot when it comes to legal matters (and others as well), is the judge saying that the state constitutional ammendment violates the state's constitution or that it violate the federal constitution?

Federal


pres man wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.
Well, one could always point to the 9th amendment. Not all rights that exist must be listed specifically in the Constitution.

+1

I don't think the government should be in the marriage and social engineering business.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Yay!

Sovereign Court

I'm only surprised it took this long for a judge to step in and remind people that they can't just legislate away people's freedoms cause they're different.


I wonder why poly-amorous marriage or civil union can't get any traction?

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:

As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.

I can find a life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the constitution, both in the state of California and the federal government. Course, both parties violated that with the legal institution of slavery a while back. Hey, didn't the states have the right to judge if it was legal or not as well? And what about "separate but equal"....

Liberty's Edge

joela wrote:
Otherwise, California would not be the clean, smog-free state it is now. (Did you think we like our anti-pollution laws?)

Considering the last two letters of your nick, I assume you're being ironic?

Liberty's Edge

joela wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.

I can find a life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the constitution

Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution does not have a provision guaranteeing the "right" of "happiness". That was just some cool s$#% to say to piss off George III. ;-)

Dark Archive

houstonderek wrote:
joela wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.

I can find a life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the constitution
Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution does not have a provision guaranteeing the "right" of "happiness". That was just some cool s!#% to say to piss off George III. ;-)

Good point. Let's follow the letter of the law instead of the intent, eh? ^_^

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

pres man wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.
Well, one could always point to the 9th amendment. Not all rights that exist must be listed specifically in the Constitution.

Ah, the 'lost ammendment' :-)

The right of people to engage in personal contacts isn't infringed. I don't think even the 9th would cover a 'right to government recognition of a partnership.'

Edit: another conservative viewpoint


Matthew Morris wrote:
pres man wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
As has been said elsewhere, find me a 'right to marriage' in the constitution.
Well, one could always point to the 9th amendment. Not all rights that exist must be listed specifically in the Constitution.

Ah, the 'lost ammendment' :-)

The right of people to engage in personal contacts isn't infringed. I don't think even the 9th would cover a 'right to government recognition of a partnership.'

Edit: another conservative viewpoint

Which takes us back to all the arguments about what gay couples are excluded from in addition to marriage.

Dark Archive

Really?

"In the huge paper that the judge wrote he says, "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)"

Sovereign Court

All I can say is YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAA *deep inhale* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.

Dark Archive

So awesome!!!!


joela wrote:

To be honest, I am surprised:

A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full article here.

You havent been watching the actors who have been acting out the court proceedings then. The couples sueing made very strong cases while the state had none. In fact the judge (who is gay, which is NOT a reason to excuse him) made 80 points ! in his summery on things that have been proven false of the state arguments (such as childern raised by gays grow up to be gay themselves.

And it is in the constitution which saids something to the effect that the goverment cannot make laws without some intreast to the goverment.
For instance murder. The federal goverement has laws against murder because it denies one life, liberty blah blah. PLUS things like you've just killed a tax payer. So the goverment has intreast in it.
Todays ruling actully talks about how the goverment - and not the state of cali- has NO reason to denie gay people the right to marry.


Exiled Prince wrote:
joela wrote:

To be honest, I am surprised:

A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full article here.

You havent been watching the actors who have been acting out the court proceedings then. The couples sueing made very strong cases while the state had none. In fact the judge (who is gay, which is NOT a reason to excuse him) made 80 points ! in his summery on things that have been proven false of the state arguments (such as childern raised by gays grow up to be gay themselves.

And it is in the constitution which saids something to the effect that the goverment cannot make laws without some intreast to the goverment.
For instance murder. The federal goverement has laws against murder because it denies one life, liberty blah blah. PLUS things like you've just killed a tax payer. So the goverment has intreast in it.
Todays ruling actully talks about how the goverment - and not the state of cali- has NO reason to denie gay people the right to marry.

Now I wonder how many of those are going to be used to get poly-marriages up next. There is no real reason given for same-sex marriage that can't apply also to poly-marriages either.


pres man wrote:
Now I wonder how many of those are going to be used to get poly-marriages up next. There is no real reason given for same-sex marriage that can't apply also to poly-marriages either.

Good point. Hopefully at some point in the future we can do away with discrimination against polyamory/polygamy and all other forms of loving relationships as well. Informed and consenting mature people should be allowed to enter into any sort of relationship they desire.

Zo


DigMarx wrote:
pres man wrote:
Now I wonder how many of those are going to be used to get poly-marriages up next. There is no real reason given for same-sex marriage that can't apply also to poly-marriages either.
Good point. Hopefully at some point in the future we can do away with discrimination against polyamory/polygamy and all other forms of loving relationships as well. Informed and consenting mature people should be allowed to enter into any sort of relationship they desire.

But what would the conseravite Christians do then!?!?!?!

Dark Archive

yoda8myhead wrote:
DigMarx wrote:
pres man wrote:
Now I wonder how many of those are going to be used to get poly-marriages up next. There is no real reason given for same-sex marriage that can't apply also to poly-marriages either.
Good point. Hopefully at some point in the future we can do away with discrimination against polyamory/polygamy and all other forms of loving relationships as well. Informed and consenting mature people should be allowed to enter into any sort of relationship they desire.
But what would the conseravite Christians do then!?!?!?!

Go back to hating Maine for their abominal lobster fishery, and high fashion for having mixed fabrics, and hating everyone for cutting the hair at their temples.


yoda8myhead wrote:
DigMarx wrote:
pres man wrote:
Now I wonder how many of those are going to be used to get poly-marriages up next. There is no real reason given for same-sex marriage that can't apply also to poly-marriages either.
Good point. Hopefully at some point in the future we can do away with discrimination against polyamory/polygamy and all other forms of loving relationships as well. Informed and consenting mature people should be allowed to enter into any sort of relationship they desire.
But what would the conseravite Christians do then!?!?!?!

I don't know, but I know what the Mormons will be doing, LOL.

Why do you think they pushed so hard for Prop 8? They want the same-sex lobby to push the issue all the way, do all the leg work for them. Once the Supreme Court recognizes the same-sex rights, it is will be an easy case to get rid of all the polygamy laws and recognize their marriages.


yoda8myhead wrote:
DigMarx wrote:
pres man wrote:
Now I wonder how many of those are going to be used to get poly-marriages up next. There is no real reason given for same-sex marriage that can't apply also to poly-marriages either.
Good point. Hopefully at some point in the future we can do away with discrimination against polyamory/polygamy and all other forms of loving relationships as well. Informed and consenting mature people should be allowed to enter into any sort of relationship they desire.
But what would the conseravite Christians do then!?!?!?!

Enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the population (finally) and bask in the glory of God as expressed through the resplendent divine diversity of mankind? Or something? Anyway, I don't want to offend those whose opinions differ from mine, Christian or non-.

Zo


yoda8myhead wrote:


But what would the conseravite Christians do then!?!?!?!

In the off chance that they run out of people to hate, which is virtually impossible since the universe keeps supplying new people, they'll declare a portion of their own to be Satanists and repeat. It's been done before:

Quote:

This form of Satanism was invented by the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th century CE, just prior to the time of the Witch burnings. It was heavily promoted by both Catholic and Protestant churches through the 16the century and beyond. The belief offered the neatest solution to the dilemma of theodicy -- the theological conflict caused by the presence of evil in the universe that was created by an all-loving, moral God. The Church theorized that Satan worship existed, was widespread, and was a massive threat to the established order. These beliefs gave the legal and moral justification for the Witch burnings (sometimes called the burning times or the female holocaust).

Many Christians today (particularly from the conservative wing of Protestantism) still believe that Satanism exists. However, it is an imaginary religion that either does not exist in reality, or is extremely rarely practiced. Law enforcement organizations have been searching for some scrap of evidence of its existence since the "Satanic Panics" of the 1980s to the mid 1990s, without success.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ah it's always nice to see the love and compassion shown to others who disagree with you. *sigh*

IaNaL, but it was my understanding of Judicial Review that lower courts should follow precident, then let it work its way out to the supreme court.

i.e. Baker v Nelson is the controlling precedent. Shouldn't the judge, and then the 9th circus uphold prop 8 as not conflicting with Baker, then let the Supreme's revisit?

I mean Baker specifically left the power to 'define marriage' to the states, so this goes against precedent.


Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.

I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.

And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.


Good, I hope it stays over turned.

The Exchange

Matthew Morris wrote:

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Just as a note, this is not "not paying attention to precedent." Because of the way that the Baker case went to the Supreme Court (through the Minnesota Supreme Court), and the summary dismissal, which did not approve of nor negate the Minnesota decision, did not give directions as to how to apply the precedent, it is up to the judges to apply.

If this case were in the state of Minnesota, I think overall the precedent would heavily apply. If it were in the 8th circuit of appeals then there also would be a large chance of precedent applying. However, since this type of case has not gone to the 9th circuit of appeals before, and there is no "higher ruling" (neither from the Supreme Court nor the 9th circuit of appeals) on how to apply this precedent, the judge is fully within his rights to state that it is unconstitutional on federal standards if he so chooses.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Alizor wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Just as a note, this is not "not paying attention to precedent." Because of the way that the Baker case went to the Supreme Court (through the Minnesota Supreme Court), and the summary dismissal, which did not approve of nor negate the Minnesota decision, did not give directions as to how to apply the precedent, it is up to the judges to apply.

Since this type of case has not gone to the 9th circuit of appeals before, there is no "higher ruling" on how to apply this precedent. The judge is fully within his rights to state that it is unconstitutional on federal standards if he so chooses.

Ok. Like I said IaNaL. :-) I disagree with him, but he wears the funny black robes.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Ok, first, to your FB writings...we already tried seperate but equal, anybody care to remind me how that turned out?

The problem with prop 8 and any other ballot initiatives designed to ban same-sex marriage (or deny any right), is that a simple majority is being used to deny rights to a minority. This is not how our political system was designed to nor should work. Allowing the populace at large to deny rights to minorities based on a simple majority vote is a very, very slippery slope. What's to stop people in a state with high unemployment and a large hispanic population to put a ballot initiative in that says all hispanics need to be rounded up so all the illegals can be kicked out?

I have experienced firsthand the benefits that rights activists have procured for us. If not for the people before me who had the testicular fortitude to stand up and fight for the right of interracial couples to get married, there's a good chance my wife and I wouldn't have been able to get married.

The fact that prop 8 was passed by a majority of Californians has caused me to lose a large amount of faith in my fellow man. I have no respect whatsoever for anybody who would discriminate against two (or more) consenting adults based simply upon what goes on behind closed doors in their bedroom. I don't care what the reasoning is: discrimination is never OK.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

So now we have a judge on the East coast who says that the right to define marriage should be left to the states (While I disagree with his reasoning (medicaid) I agree with the opinion.)

And we have a judge on the West coast who in addition to not reading precedent likely should have recused himself.

Matthew's opinion. States can put requirements on receipt of marriage licenses, they do it all the time. The judge is wrong.

(Disclaimer: I wrote on the topic of SSM last year here

Ok, first, to your FB writings...we already tried seperate but equal, anybody care to remind me how that turned out?

The problem with prop 8 and any other ballot initiatives designed to ban same-sex marriage (or deny any right), is that a simple majority is being used to deny rights to a minority. This is not how our political system was designed to nor should work. Allowing the populace at large to deny rights to minorities based on a simple majority vote is a very, very slippery slope. What's to stop people in a state with high unemployment and a large hispanic population to put a ballot initiative in that says all hispanics need to be rounded up so all the illegals can be kicked out?

I have experienced firsthand the benefits that rights activists have procured for us. If not for the people before me who had the testicular fortitude to stand up and fight for the right of interracial couples to get married, there's a good chance my wife and I wouldn't have been able to get married.

The fact that prop 8 was passed by a majority of Californians has caused me to lose a large amount of faith in my fellow man....

Sorry, but being denied the legal right to have a certain relation legal recognized is not the same as rounding people up. Let's leave hyperboles like that out of the conversation, they do nothing to advance the issues being discussed.


Kratzee wrote:

Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.

I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.

And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.

I kindda find that ironic because so many of the african american religious leaders are so doggedly opposed to saying it is a civil rights matter. Leaders like sharpton,jackson,farekan and others I can't remember point out in their own brand of logic that you can hide being gay but you can't hide being "black" so it's not a civil rights issue.

It doesn't make any sense to me but thats their logic.

I am more than a little worried by this case because of the fact that it violates a states sovern rights. The federal government should never tell a state "you can't pass that law within your own borders"

If the people of californa don't want gay marriage forced on them then they shouldn't have it forced on them. Plain and simple end of disscussion. Please realise I am a gay man but I would rather fight for true change in law and public opinion than have "activist" judges tell the people of a state your rights don't matter, we know whats best for you whether you like it or not.

To sum up, I see this as a issue of states rights to tell the feds "no" than about the civil rights of a minority group.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Sorry, but being denied the legal right to have a certain relation legal recognized is not the same as rounding people up. Let's leave hyperboles like that out of the conversation, they do nothing to advance the issues being discussed.

Both examples are legally sanctioned discrimination based solely on majority vote (and with the anti-immigrant sentiment at the high point that it is nowadays, a move like that honestly wouldn't surprise me).

But I digress, yes, maybe it is a lil bit o hyperbole...a more appropriate example might be, say, denying muslims the right to build mosques in a city?


Matthew Morris wrote:

Ah it's always nice to see the love and compassion shown to others who disagree with you. *sigh*

IaNaL, but it was my understanding of Judicial Review that lower courts should follow precident, then let it work its way out to the supreme court.

i.e. Baker v Nelson is the controlling precedent. Shouldn't the judge, and then the 9th circus uphold prop 8 as not conflicting with Baker, then let the Supreme's revisit?

I mean Baker specifically left the power to 'define marriage' to the states, so this goes against precedent.

I would point out that as conservatives there are plenty of times we might oppose a slavish devotion to precedent over the constitution.

I think the constitution and fundamental human rights should always be the primary factor.


It should be noted that a similar case happened in Nebraska in 2005-2006. A federal judge ruled a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages was federally unconstitutional. This case was overturned by the Eighth Circuit and the amendment was put back into place.

So how is the current issue different? Well, the Ninth Circuit is more likely to uphold the judge's ruling and thus forcing it to go to the Supreme Court.

1 to 50 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / California Judge rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban to be Unconstitutional All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.