Judge Rules California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional 8/4/10

[KaylynnCouture]

Breaking news on pretty much every major news network but no news stories to post yet (just breaking news tickers across the tops of the screen).

Stay tuned..

 

[shana]

Heh, you beat me to it! ; - )

Here's the Gawker article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Here's the correct LINK:

http://gawker.com/5604649/california-proposition-8-ruled-unconstitutional-overturned

Sorry about that!

 

[KaylynnCouture]

Found an article..

Judge Overturns California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

[KaylynnCouture]

Oops, Shana got it before me. Thanks Shana!!

 

[reportertype]

Great news!

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

 

[Belinda]

Just finished reading the whole opinion. This judge rocked the house! What an incredibly well done ruling. I am so happy to see a ruling for equality. So many people have been kept from marrying the person they love. It makes me feel guilty that I enjoy being married, knowing that others aren't allowed. I hope gay rights continue to spread across the country. It's time.

 

[Elphaba]

:clap:

Yay Cali!

 

[Nova]

Before the hysteria starts, let me mention that the judge who made the ruling is himself gay. And of course, the proponents of Prop 8--who have no rational basis for their position--are already out there saying Judge
Turner was simply voting his bias.

But as the L.A. Times points out in today's editorial. Turner was first nominated by Ronald Reagan but not confirmed, then finally nominated and confirmed under George H.W. Bush. In both hearings, Turner was bitterly opposed by gay-rights groups because his record as an attorney was not favorable to gay causes.

So it's a little late at this point to claim the man is simply a tool of the mythical "Gay Agenda."

 

[Belinda]

I know there is still a long road ahead, but I can't help but be thrilled by such a solid, well-written opinion strongly supported by the evidence presented. I believe it will stand on appeal. I just can't see how it could be overturned. The evidence in support of the plaintiffs was so overwhelming. They put on a great case and the defense didn't bother defending. That has now bitten them in the butt. I am seriously hoping this will go to the Supreme Court and establish federal law to overturn DOMA and I think it will.

 

[reportertype]

Before the hysteria starts, let me mention that the judge who made the ruling is himself gay. And of course, the proponents of Prop 8--who have no rational basis for their position--are already out there saying Judge
Turner was simply voting his bias.

But as the L.A. Times points out in today's editorial. Turner was first nominated by Ronald Reagan but not confirmed, then finally nominated and confirmed under George H.W. Bush. In both hearings, Turner was bitterly opposed by gay-rights groups because his record as an attorney was not favorable to gay causes.

So it's a little late at this point to claim the man is simply a tool of the mythical "Gay Agenda."

Whenever anyone has mentioned that, I've asked if a straight judge would automatically rule the opposite way. "Well, that's different!"

Sigh.

 

[believe09]

Great News.

 

[southcitymom]

It will come as a shock to no one that this news made my soul smile!

 

[lilpony]

This should have never been overturned. Ridiculous. We the people of Ca. voted for this. No way should it have been overturned.
WHY even VOTE then???? :banghead:

 

[Nova]

This should have never been overturned. Ridiculous. We the people of Ca. voted for this. No way should it have been overturned.
WHY even VOTE then???? :banghead:

Under our system, human rights are not subject to majority vote; that's why they are called rights. Judge Turner specifically points out that a majority of Californians once voted to legalize racial discrimination in housing; that vote was rightfully overturned by the courts.

Fortunately, our constitutions (federal and state) are just as concerned about tyranny by the majority as they are about tyranny by a king or dictator.

The authors of those documents wisely realized that no minority is safe, and society as a whole can never be stable, if some people can be declared "non-people" or "less than full citizens" simply because they differ from the majority.

This ought to be painfully obvious to all Americans, given that we live in a country in which no ethnic group, no religious denomination and no political party actually constitutes a full majority. And let's remember that at various times and places, majority votes have endorsed human slavery, the persecution and slaughter of certain people based on their religious faith, the imprisonment and murder of homosexuals, the marginalization of the handicapped, and the general denial of human rights to women.

So rather than banging our heads against the wall, let's try not imposing our arbitrary prejudices on everyone else.

 

[Nova]

Under our system, human rights are not subject to majority vote; that's why they are called rights. Judge Turner specifically points out that a majority of Californians once voted to legalize racial discrimination in housing; that vote was rightfully overturned by the courts.

Fortunately, our constitutions (federal and state) are just as concerned about tyranny by the majority as they are about tyranny by a king or dictator.

The authors of those documents wisely realized that no minority is safe, and society as a whole can never be stable, if some people can be declared "non-people" or "less than full citizens" simply because they differ from the majority.

This ought to be painfully obvious to all Americans, given that we live in a country in which no ethnic group, no religious denomination and no political party actually constitutes a full majority. And let's remember that at various times and places, majority votes have endorsed human slavery, the persecution and slaughter of certain people based on their religious faith, the imprisonment and murder of homosexuals, the marginalization of the handicapped, and the general denial of human rights to women.

So rather than banging our heads against the wall, let's try not imposing our arbitrary prejudices* on everyone else.

(ETA: I should have used the word "preferences" rather than "prejudices." They are sometimes synonyms and that's how I meant "prejudices" in this case. I was not accusing lilpony or any other supporter of Prop 8 of necessarily acting out homophobic hatred.)

 

[fran]

I'm really getting tired of this argument. Don't we have enough to worry about other than if two people who love each other, not letting them get married or not? It's their life and people just need to get over it. This is 2010, for goodness sake.

Sorry, we don't choose who we fall in love with. It just happens!

JMHO
fran



http://www.insidebayarea.com/twitter/ci_15697360

Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings

SAN FRANCISCO—Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.
The motions came two days after U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately. But later Wednesday, he agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments he ordered to be filed by Friday.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.

They argued in court papers filed earlier this week that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling.

The 9th Circuit received the case on Wednesday, hours after Walker issued his decision.

On Friday, Schwarzenegger and Brown were the first to weigh in on the issue and both urged an immediate resumption of gay marriage. The legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of two gay couples that led to Walker's ruling, also submitted a motion in conjunction with the city of San Francisco, another plaintiff.

They all argued that since the judge ruled that

......................................snip............................................

Schwarzenegger has been more circumspect on his Proposition 8 position and his motion to immediately resume gay marriage was his boldest pronouncement on the issue.

"The administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," lawyers for Schwarzenegger said in the legal filing. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<full article at link>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[gitana1]

I'm really getting tired of this argument. Don't we have enough to worry about other than if two people who love each other, not letting them get married or not? It's their life and people just need to get over it. This is 2010, for goodness sake.

Sorry, we don't choose who we fall in love with. It just happens!

JMHO
fran

Snipped by me for space.

God bless you, Fran!

 

[gitana1]

Great news!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Just finished reading the whole opinion. This judge rocked the house! What an incredibly well done ruling. I am so happy to see a ruling for equality. So many people have been kept from marrying the person they love. It makes me feel guilty that I enjoy being married, knowing that others aren't allowed. I hope gay rights continue to spread across the country. It's time.

:clap:

Yay Cali!

Before the hysteria starts, let me mention that the judge who made the ruling is himself gay. And of course, the proponents of Prop 8--who have no rational basis for their position--are already out there saying Judge
Turner was simply voting his bias.

But as the L.A. Times points out in today's editorial. Turner was first nominated by Ronald Reagan but not confirmed, then finally nominated and confirmed under George H.W. Bush. In both hearings, Turner was bitterly opposed by gay-rights groups because his record as an attorney was not favorable to gay causes.

So it's a little late at this point to claim the man is simply a tool of the mythical "Gay Agenda."

Great News.

It will come as a shock to no one that this news made my soul smile!

I love all of you guys. Your responses make my heart feel so good. This is one California girl who is dam**d happy today!

 

[gitana1]

This should have never been overturned. Ridiculous. We the people of Ca. voted for this. No way should it have been overturned.
WHY even VOTE then???? :banghead:

I didn't vote for it. And it was very close.
Sometimes the majority goes against what is right. Like when Germany voted for Hitler, or when people in the south voted for anti-miscegenation laws.
I'm happy we have a system of checks and balances so that there is room for overturning the majority if they get it wrong.
I think the reason many of the people voted for it did was due to heavy church influence. My own church (Catholic) promoted Prop. 8 like mad and made it seem that those of us against the law were immoral and that a vote against prop. 8 was a vote against morality. I disagree with my beloved church on that.
You know, the majority in the south also voted to keep slavery alive. They used religious arguments to bolster their arguments too.
Bottom line, I respect a specific religion's right to determine what they will sanction and what they won't. So, I will not argue (legally) against the rule that gays cannot be married in a Catholic church.
But our civil laws must be differentiated from religious ones. Because different religions view things differently and sometimes people within a specific religion view things differently.
Some religions used to say it was okay to put a live bride on a funeral pyre with her dead husband. Some say it is good to mutilate the genitalia of little girls to keep them pure.
We cannot base our laws solely on what certain religions hold true, IMO.