Proposition 8 shot down in California

[Mapp]

In a stunningly worded decision, A U.S. district chief judge overturned the California amendment Proposition 8, which banned same-sex couples from getting married. I recommend everyone read this decision, it is one of the best worded and cited arguments against the bigotry and religious hysteria that drove Prop 8 ever penned.
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf

Here are some choice passages:

The religious do not get to define what marriage is:

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.
Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize
marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil
marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently
whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that
recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship
under state law. P 60

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual
may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or
any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. P. 73

Domestic Partnerships are simply a consolation prize to marriage, and represent the state officially sanctioning discrimination based on sexual orientation

Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive
expression of love and commitment in the United States. P. 80
Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in
other states and are not recognized by the federal government. P 81

Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the
stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are
not good parents.

Calling the Mormons on their bullshit

The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or
lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign
advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay
or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.

The "it's about children" argument is nothing but hot air

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage
license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. "t would demean a married couple were it
to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse." Lawrence, 539 US at 567.

Civil rights are not up to a popularity contest:

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.

Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians
are the type of minority strict scrutiny [of the 14th Amendment] was designed to protect.

 

[Nemesiah]

Good for them! Now they can know the bliss 50% escape from.

How bitter can I get?

No, but seriously, I'm glad for homosexual couples, If they want to live together and have the same benifits and responsabilities that heterosexual couples have why should they be banned?

Now, can they adopt children? I hope they can; It would be a great step forward and it would provide love to children currently being taken care of by the state.

 

[Divergedwoods]

i dont understand the legal argument against gay marige

 

[Mapp]

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow[/Youtube]

i dont understand the legal argument against gay marige

One of the things the decision explains clearly is that nobody understands the legal arguments against gay marriage, because they're totally incoherent. The best they can come up with is that gay marriage essentially represents a "special right" and is thus not covered under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. It's a special or new right, they claim, because traditionally marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman.

The judge in the case, points out that the whole man/woman thing is based on outdated, and immoral notions of gender roles in marriage. The idea being that when a woman married a man, her rights were subsumed under his. She was expected to stay at home and defer to his opinion on all matters involving the public. "Traditional marriage" also banned interracial couples. To attempt to resurrect gender role as a legal argument, when it's been so clearly debunked is, to put it mildly, a waste of time. Given the marriage has already been redefined as between two consenting adults, regardless of gender roles or reproduction, banning gay marriage represents a clear violation of the equal protection clause. The defendants in the case, all professional anti-gay advocates since the state really didn't defend the law, failed to provide a rational case according to the judge.

The other arguments essentially amount to personal bigotry based on religious and personal moral principles, which have no basis in state law. The 14th Amendment is clear as crystal, the majority does not get to take away the rights of the minority simply because they don't like them.

 

[lrkun]

This made my day. The law is your friend, fellow travellers.

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

i dont understand the legal argument against gay marige

I don't blame you, there isn't one.

This is the imposition of religious morality into secular society, again. Just like the "equal time" bullshit they push in Texas.

 

[DTBeast]

What I like about this decision is it will essentially makes gay marriage legal in all states, even if they have to drive to California to get married, the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution any legally binding contract made in any state of the union must be given "Full Faith and Credit" in all other states in the Union. Ironically it was used before back in when divorce was illegal (or at least prohibitively difficult to get) in most states but No-Fault Divorce was legal and easy to get in Nevada. People would move to Reno for 6 weeks to establish residency, then get a quicky divorce that had to be recognized in every other state.

 

[Nautyskin]

i dont understand the legal argument against gay marige

I don't blame you, there isn't one.

This is the imposition of religious morality into secular society, again. Just like the "equal time" bullshit they push in Texas.

*nod*

 

[IBSpify]

What I like about this decision is it will essentially makes gay marriage legal in all states, even if they have to drive to California to get married, the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution any legally binding contract made in any state of the union must be given "Full Faith and Credit" in all other states in the Union. Ironically it was used before back in when divorce was illegal (or at least prohibitively difficult to get) in most states but No-Fault Divorce was legal and easy to get in Nevada. People would move to Reno for 6 weeks to establish residency, then get a quicky divorce that had to be recognized in every other state.

This isn't exactly right, if this were true people would have already been able to go to Massachusetts or Iowa and get their marriage licenses. The problem is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which enables any state to not recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state.

 

[DTBeast]

What I like about this decision is it will essentially makes gay marriage legal in all states, even if they have to drive to California to get married, the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution any legally binding contract made in any state of the union must be given "Full Faith and Credit" in all other states in the Union. Ironically it was used before back in when divorce was illegal (or at least prohibitively difficult to get) in most states but No-Fault Divorce was legal and easy to get in Nevada. People would move to Reno for 6 weeks to establish residency, then get a quicky divorce that had to be recognized in every other state.

This isn't exactly right, if this were true people would have already been able to go to Massachusetts or Iowa and get their marriage licenses. The problem is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which enables any state to not recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state.

I meant to edit my first post, because people who get legal gay marriages in Mass, Cali, or Iowa and move to other states will have grounds to sue the state to get them to recognize the marriage, striking down the blatantly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, because the courts cannot uphold the DOMA without punching holes in the Full Faith and Credit clause, leading to wacky contract law issues and pretty much destroying interstate commerce

 

[IBSpify]

I also wish to point out that just because prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional does not mean that homosexuals can now go out and get married, the defense on the case (pro-prop 8) have asked the judge to put a stay on the repeal pending appeal, the judge is expected to issue his ruling on the stay early next week, and it's expected that he will issue the stay, which means that it will most likely be at least another year before the appeal is heard, at which point whichever side loses the appeal will likely appeal it to the US supreme court, meaning it could still be 2 or 3 years before homosexual marriage is actually allowed in California

 

[simonecuttlefish]

EDITED IN: This is absolutely everything that need to be seen/discussed/justified.
It's all there is. Now it's just a constitutional argument, as the is no biblical morality argument whatsoever. /edit
Betty Bowers Describes a True Biblical Marriage.

 

[Netheralian]

... whichever side loses the appeal will likely appeal it to the US supreme court, meaning it could still be 2 or 3 years before homosexual marriage is actually allowed in California

The timing might be shit, but I could see this as ultimately a good thing (imho). The argument is pretty hollow at the moment so I can't see the ban on gay marriage sticking once it reaches federal level. And if it passes at that level, then anyone who appeals a ban on gay marriage in any state has a precedent that they can't deny as it will have been deemed unconstitutional.

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

This isn't exactly right, if this were true people would have already been able to go to Massachusetts or Iowa and get their marriage licenses. The problem is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which enables any state to not recognize a homosexual marriage performed in another state.

DOMA was overturned a month ago. Ruled unconstitutional as it was seen as discriminatory and against the equality tenets of the Constitution.

 

[borrofburi]

I also wish to point out that just because prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional does not mean that homosexuals can now go out and get married, the defense on the case (pro-prop 8) have asked the judge to put a stay on the repeal pending appeal, the judge is expected to issue his ruling on the stay early next week, and it's expected that he will issue the stay, which means that it will most likely be at least another year before the appeal is heard, at which point whichever side loses the appeal will likely appeal it to the US supreme court, meaning it could still be 2 or 3 years before homosexual marriage is actually allowed in California

I wouldn't think he would grant the stay... I mean... With quotes like:
"California [may] issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000...& has not suffered any...harm as a result."
"Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality."

Unless of course he has no choice...

 

[DeistPaladin]

Good for them! Now they can know the bliss 50% escape from.

How bitter can I get?

No, but seriously, I'm glad for homosexual couples, If they want to live together and have the same benifits and responsabilities that heterosexual couples have why should they be banned?

I remember reading one letter on the issue of gay marriage back when Bush made it a major part of his reelection campaign in 2004.

The letter read something along the lines of:
"As a divorced man, I see no reason to offer gays any legal protection from the heartbreak and financial ruin that I've had to endure. If they're dumb enough to get married, I say let them learn the hard way."

I'm happily married myself but I still found the argument funny.

 

[IBSpify]

DOMA was overturned a month ago. Ruled unconstitutional as it was seen as discriminatory and against the equality tenets of the Constitution.

Not quite, the only part of DOMA that was overturned was the part about the federal government not recognizing homosexual marriages in states where they are legal, the DOMA still stands, but the federal government has to grant them their rights as married couples now (such has green card rights if one member is not a citizen and the other is)

I wouldn't think he would grant the stay... I mean... With quotes like:
"California [may] issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000...& has not suffered any...harm as a result."
"Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality."

I would hope so, but it isn't likely. If he doesn't order the stay the defense will almost certainly try to go over his head in the same way that they did with the TV camera's for the trial (the courts created a new TV system just before the trial and the defense complained, he said the cameras are staying they challenged the higher courts told him to turn off the cameras), and they would likely order the stay until they get the chance to rule on the case. I hope that he doesn't issue the stay, but every legal analyst looking at the case says that he will likely will.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I love hearing how gays can get civil unions, how come they need special rights?

All I can hear is "Separate but Equal."

 

[borrofburi]

All I can hear is "Separate but Equal."

I agree, and that is exactly the path I usually take in one of these disagreements: comparing all "NO GAY MARRIAGE" arguments to "NO MIXED MARRIAGES" arguments. Marriage was not always defined as one man and one woman, it was once defined as one man and one women, of the same race; marriage of different races was an abomination, a violation of the clear separation that god intended to distinguish via the separation of races. It works well, until you run into a racist, and then you just face palm and give up.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You know...

My wife and I started dating early in 2003. Later that year, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. It didn't do anything to our relationship.

We got married in 2005, just like gay folks in Massachusetts had been doing for about a year and a half, and at no point did any of those marriages affect my wedding in the slightest.

Since then, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire have all legalized same sex marriage. Somehow, my marriage has survived all of those (according to opponents) attacks on my marriage. We must be more devoted to each other than we realized.

California had same sex marriage. Nothing happened to me and my wife. California lost gay marriage. Still nothing. It looks like they are getting it back. No effect whatsoever on my marriage.

What is the big deal supposed to be? It doesn't hurt me, and it makes them happy, so people should get out of the goddamned way!