PDA

View Full Version : CA Prop 8 Declared Unconstitutional


Arainach
08-04-2010, 17:34
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html

This afternoon U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in the case brought before him by lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, which argued that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative denying marriage rights to same-sex couples in California was unconstitutional. The case, which was taken on by the unlikely pair (they faced off against one another famously during the 2000 presidential election aftermath, with Olson representing Bush and Boies Gore) over a year ago, has caught the attention of the nation for the likelihood that it will eventually take the cause of gay marriage all the way up to the Supreme Court. In a decision just handed down to lawyers for both sides, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses." The court, therefore, "orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement." We're staying tuned for more updates and details on the 136-page decision, but these two sentences from the conclusion are critical:

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.

That's what history sounds like. Of course, before the ruling was released, lawyers for the opposing side filed a motion to stay his ruling pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

...original story continues...Of course, there's 2 appeals left that will doubtlessly be used, but at least the initial ruling is promising.

chefTENGU
08-04-2010, 18:58
I saw a story about this on CNN this morning. Counsel and co-counsel arguing for overturning Prop 8 were Ted Olson and David Boies, who were arguing against each other before the Supreme Court 10 years ago in Bush v. Gore.

I'm really happy that the argument "HAY CIVIL RIGHTS" won out over "EWW GAYS"

deathofcheese
08-04-2010, 19:56
Yay.

SpaceProg
08-04-2010, 20:29
Next thing you know, them nigras are gonna want to vote.

Arainach
08-04-2010, 20:48
Next thing you know, them nigras are gonna want to vote.Or be President. What's the world coming to?

chefTENGU
08-04-2010, 21:11
One thing I find a bit distressing is how a bunch of people are trying to undermine the XIVth amendment now. Mostly in relation to illegal immigration, but I wouldn't put it past some people (i.e. Texas) to say that gays don't deserve full rights or protection under it.

I mean, considering the language they use when stating their newly-amended party platform with its focus on criminalizing gay to the fullest extent possible.

Bloodcinder
08-05-2010, 11:27
If you want to see fanatical bigotry blind to reason, check here (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/08/04/25055) for reactions from supporters of Prop 8.

Here's a summary of the judge's decision, since I've been following the case for months now: Are gay people a class of people that can be segregated or are they not? Well, are they a class of people with an intrinsic characteristic or a behavior? Since their nature is intrinsic, as shown by the scientific community, they cannot be treated as a class that displays an unwanted behavior. So it is not lawful to discriminate against them based on their intrinsic nature. So it is not lawful to deny them the constitutional right to marriage, as ruled in other cases, based on their intrinsic nature. QED.

Here's a summary of the opposition's stance: this judge's decision hurts children (despite science showing that children are neither harmed nor hurt by having same-sex parents), denies the votes of seven million Californians (despite evidence that many of these votes were due to deceptive campaigning and despite the judicial evidence that their vote was for an unconstitutional concept and despite there being about three million gays in California), and this ruling redefines marriage (even though marriage has been redefined many times in the United States through the elimination of miscegenation, the shift to no-fault divorce, the prohibition of polygamy, and the maintenance of advanced age of consent limitations).

chefTENGU
08-05-2010, 16:10
One very important point that the opposition seems to be missing, and it's an important one, is that courts exist not only for trying people accused of crimes but also for trying the laws we make against the Constitution.

It's not that "your votes don't count." It's that no one has the right to decide to infringe upon the guaranteed Constitutional rights American citizens enjoy... even if a whole lot of people get together and make a law allowing them to infringe upon those rights.

Killer_Man_
08-05-2010, 22:29
I can't remember the quote but I think family guy, Lois said, "I'm wrong, if two straight couple can be allowed to married and be unhappy then two gay couple should be able to be."

chefTENGU
08-05-2010, 23:14
I followed the link BC put in his post and it was painful to read. Totally incoherent... basically just like what he said.

First of all, Newt Gingrich is the last person on earth who should tell anyone anything about marriage.

Second, I think it's funny that people are accusing Judge Walker of being biased because he is "openly gay" when the man was appointed by Ronald Reagan and was originally thought to be TOO CONSERVATIVE to be confirmed.

Third, why are all these people who love to yell about "HOW THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE WANTED IT" so utterly phobic toward judges and courts? They're only doing exactly the job the founding fathers intended for them (i.e., calling bullshit on legislation when it defeats the purpose of America).

Colonel Skills
08-06-2010, 02:19
The "Finding of Facts" part of the paper is basically one huge simile for "eat my shit".

I fucking love it.