Gay Marriage Ban is Overturned in CA

[Ooberman]

U.S. Court Overturns Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban
By JESSE McKINLEY and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: August 4, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing a temporary victory to gay rights advocates in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban — Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote -- and proponents were already promising to appeal, confidently predicting that higher courts would be less accommodating to the other side than Judge Walker.

“Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of a same sex, so denying us equality within the family system is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people,� said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, who filed two briefs in favor of the plaintiffs. “And we believe that equality in marriage would help reduce discrimination in other settings because the government invites disrespect of us when it denies us equality.�

The trial, which began in January, was closely watched in the gay community, drawing large crowds to courtrooms, and inspiring re-creations by actors which were posted online. The plaintiffs offered two weeks of evidence from experts on marriage, sociology and political science, and emotional testimony from the two couples who had brought the case.

Proponents for Proposition 8, which was heavily backed by the Mormon church and other religious and conservative groups, had offered a much more straightforward defense of the measure, saying that same-sex marriage damages traditional marriage as an institution. They also argued that marriage was essentially created to foster procreation, which same-sex unions could not, and was thus fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.

Gay marriage will be a reality in America soon. I see no reason for the proponents of banning gay marriage to make a credible case - especially when we know it is rally driven by religious reasons, which makes them disingenuous AND wrong.

[Ooberman]

Given the issue, I don't think there's any way to counter claims of bias, no matter who did the judging.

Given ANY issue this is true. A man ruling on abortion or a woman? A black person judging the merits of equal rights?

No, IMO, making this a "gay thing" is as dangerous as it is to making a "race thing".

It's the silent bigotry of our culture. No offense, personally...

Law, the rule of Law, is the winner here. Logic, reason and the acceptance of who we are as an animal on a little blue marble with no guide book. (At least no guide book that actually seems to solve a problem.)

I think once you endanger what the rule of law created, you risk turning every case into a personal matter. Judges will be scrutinized.

"But did he like Coke or Pepsi during that ruling?" "Does he like to secretly wear panties?"

We don't ask if an accountant is gay - and that is the force and goal of the Law - to create binding rules that we can all live by.

I think the judge was brave to have no qualms about seeing the case.

After all, we can pretty much presume every judge before him was a judge that may have opposed gay marriage.

After all, he could be gay and not want gay marriage? I think it is bigotry to think we need to know his mindset.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

Given the issue, I don't think there's any way to counter claims of bias, no matter who did the judging.

Given ANY issue this is true. A man ruling on abortion or a woman? A black person judging the merits of equal rights?

No, IMO, making this a "gay thing" is as dangerous as it is to making a "race thing".

It's the silent bigotry of our culture. No offense, personally...

I take no offense. My original comment regarding the sexuality of the judge was an awkward attempt at trying to remove an angle that as you've shown, need not even apply. I will retract or amend to your and the observer's content.

Law, the rule of Law, is the winner here. Logic, reason and the acceptance of who we are as an animal on a little blue marble with no guide book. (At least no guide book that actually seems to solve a problem.)
I think once you endanger what the rule of law created, you risk turning every case into a personal matter. Judges will be scrutinized.
"But did he like Coke or Pepsi during that ruling?" "Does he like to secretly wear panties?"

I would say that it is fair to scrutinize a judge, but of course we must consider the context of such. Will this judge's ruling be argued on the merits, or on his sexual preference?

We don't ask if an accountant is gay - and that is the force and goal of the Law - to create binding rules that we can all live by.

I think the judge was brave to have no qualms about seeing the case.

After all, we can pretty much presume every judge before him was a judge that may have opposed gay marriage.

After all, he could be gay and not want gay marriage? I think it is bigotry to think we need to know his mindset.

I think it fair to address mindset. Here we have a judge that admits to being homosexual, and the reasonable and logical (if erroneous) inference that his personal opinion may have crept into the ruling - let me be clear though, I don't think this has occurred, having read the ruling from the previously referenced link.

Again, I was trying to head off this exact angle, and seem to have failed miserably in my endeavor

[chris_brown207]

Ohhh no. This marks the end of civilization as we know it!





J/J - I know, not very debate like, but I just had to throw at least one barb in after all the potshots which amount to saying the same thing that I have heard on previous threads of the same topic. I say good for California, and good for gay rights.

[TheLibertarian]

The thing is, people like WinePusher and his fellow Fundies aren't remotely conservative. They're quite at home with mob rule, so long as the mob does what they want. I reject that, and I reject "the People" as a political fiction. There is only the individual man, the solitary soul.

Your inability to reserve judgement knows no bounds, before telling me that I am not a conservative you should maybe pull the large stick out of your own eye. But unlike you, I do not regard the American public as a "mob" that knows nothing. I suppose your arrogance leads you to believe that if the majority of the public disagrees with you, they must be ignorant about the issues?

They're also ignorant about every other issue, yes. The American "people" are a herd of cattle that ought to be trained by blows. They are easily led by any sweet-talker who comes their way, be he a Marxist ala Obama or a slave-moraled television preacher. Whatever they desire is almost precisely the opposite of what ought to be done. That they voted against Proposition 8 leads me to support it unconditionally. Individual liberty and the herd mentality are almost always at variance; we saw it in the collectivist Soviet Union and we see it today among collectivist Christians and other dregs of society.

[Goat]

I would say that it is fair to scrutinize a judge, but of course we must consider the context of such. Will this judge's ruling be argued on the merits, or on his sexual preference?

[/quote]

From what I read, Judge Walker wrote an exhaustive legal analsyis of the situation, that was very well crafted He took his time to write completely and clearly, since he knew that it would come under appeal.

[JoeyKnothead]

I would say that it is fair to scrutinize a judge, but of course we must consider the context of such. Will this judge's ruling be argued on the merits, or on his sexual preference?

From what I read, Judge Walker wrote an exhaustive legal analsyis of the situation, that was very well crafted He took his time to write completely and clearly, since he knew that it would come under appeal.

I read the complete text from the previously referenced link, and would concur. He lays out his ruling quite well, and this non-lawyer would have difficulty poking holes.

[otseng]

"the masses are asses" ... undereducated morons ... people like WinePusher and his fellow Fundies aren't remotely conservative. They're quite at home with mob rule, so long as the mob does what they want.

Moderator formal warning:

Please avoid describing any group in a derogatory manner. And also avoid making any comments regarding another forum member.

[Jrosemary]

I just wanted to pop in and say how very, very happy I am that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional! I hope this ruling holds up in appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

I'm also glad that one of the lawyers who argued against prop 8--Ted Olson--is known as quite the conservative. (see this New York Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opini ... avid_boies.) This doesn't have to be a liberal vs. conservative issue: if you see legalizing gay marriage as a way of protecting the civil rights of the citizens of this country, it doesn't matter which side of the ailsle you sit on or vote for.

[micatala]

I just wanted to pop in and say how very, very happy I am that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional! I hope this ruling holds up in appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

I'm also glad that one of the lawyers who argued against prop 8--Ted Olson--is known as quite the conservative. (see this New York Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opini ... avid_boies.) This doesn't have to be a liberal vs. conservative issue: if you see legalizing gay marriage as a way of protecting the civil rights of the citizens of this country, it doesn't matter which side of the ailsle you sit on or vote for.

Jrosemary.

You might also find this article, entirely written by Olson, to be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the- ... riage.html

It includes discussion of their basic strategy and addresses the case made by the opponents.



I had referred to it quite a ways back in the longer Homosexual marriage thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=300



Post #318 in that same thread refers to a number of cases having to do with marriage.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=310

Marriage is such a basic right that SCOTUS has held we cannot deprive felons of the right to marry, nor dead beat dads. If the harms caused to society by these two groups are not sufficient to deny them the right to marry, one wonders how banning gay marriage can be justified.

[Jrosemary]

I just wanted to pop in and say how very, very happy I am that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional! I hope this ruling holds up in appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

I'm also glad that one of the lawyers who argued against prop 8--Ted Olson--is known as quite the conservative. (see this New York Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opini ... avid_boies.) This doesn't have to be a liberal vs. conservative issue: if you see legalizing gay marriage as a way of protecting the civil rights of the citizens of this country, it doesn't matter which side of the ailsle you sit on or vote for.

Jrosemary.

You might also find this article, entirely written by Olson, to be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the- ... riage.html

It includes discussion of their basic strategy and addresses the case made by the opponents.



I had referred to it quite a ways back in the longer Homosexual marriage thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=300



Post #318 in that same thread refers to a number of cases having to do with marriage.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=310

Marriage is such a basic right that SCOTUS has held we cannot deprive felons of the right to marry, nor dead beat dads. If the harms caused to society by these two groups are not sufficient to deny them the right to marry, one wonders how banning gay marriage can be justified.

I saw that Newsweek article back when it first came out--I couldn't get the link to work now, but I remember being impressed by Olson's arguments for gay marriage and impressed that he remained, as far as I could tell, a political conservative. I'm far more liberal than he, but I don't see any reason this should be a liberal vs. conservative issue. We should not be denying any adults the right to marry whom they choose and to obtain all the benefits granted by the state for married couples.