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.

[SailingCyclops]

... Seems that instead of practicing democracy, your side undermines the democratic process and has the courts legislate from the bench. That is extremism, not my side who puts the issue on the ballet instead of running to the courts.

This "my side" -- "your side" is counter productive and juvenile.

We don't live in a democracy thank goodness! That is a fallacy. We live in a constitutional republic. There is a very distinct separation of powers. A good thing. We the people, as well as all other branches of governance must follow the constitution. A majority can NOT reinstate slavery, or make Christianity illegal, or force abortion and sterilization on irrational religionists. You should be very happy and proud about that. Our constitution protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. You should rejoice about that, for one day you will be in the minority, and this will be your only protection against the then majority.

Under our system the people do NOT have the right to pass laws which are forbidden by the constitution. The 14th amendment mandates equality. So, if gay marriage is illegal, so must heterosexual marriage be illegal. Is this what you want? Be careful what you wish and fight for. If the day comes when the majority of the population feel outraged over religion, do you want them to have the power to make following yours a crime? THINK! Be careful what you seek to destroy, because you destroy those protections for yourself as well.

Bob

[Ooberman]

... Seems that instead of practicing democracy, your side undermines the democratic process and has the courts legislate from the bench. That is extremism, not my side who puts the issue on the ballet instead of running to the courts.

This "my side" -- "your side" is counter productive and juvenile.

We don't live in a democracy thank goodness! That is a fallacy. We live in a constitutional republic. There is a very distinct separation of powers. A good thing. We the people, as well as all other branches of governance must follow the constitution. A majority can NOT reinstate slavery, or make Christianity illegal, or force abortion and sterilization on irrational religionists. You should be very happy and proud about that. Our constitution protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. You should rejoice about that, for one day you will be in the minority, and this will be your only protection against the then majority.

Under our system the people do NOT have the right to pass laws which are forbidden by the constitution. The 14th amendment mandates equality. So, if gay marriage is illegal, so must heterosexual marriage be illegal. Is this what you want? Be careful what you wish and fight for. If the day comes when the majority of the population feel outraged over religion, do you want them to have the power to make following yours a crime? THINK! Be careful what you seek to destroy, because you destroy those protections for yourself as well.

Bob

Nicely said, or as Randi Rhodes often says, "Separation of Church and State for the protection of both."

[WinePusher]

... Seems that instead of practicing democracy, your side undermines the democratic process and has the courts legislate from the bench. That is extremism, not my side who puts the issue on the ballet instead of running to the courts.

This "my side" -- "your side" is counter productive and juvenile.

Fair enough.

We don't live in a democracy thank goodness! That is a fallacy. We live in a constitutional republic. There is a very distinct separation of powers. A good thing. We the people, as well as all other branches of governance must follow the constitution.

All of this is very nice, but does not address the topic. Change in a society comes through the legislature, not the courts. The courts do not make laws, if you or others want a law permitting abortion and/or gay marriage, make it in the legislature. Do NOT undermine the system and "seperation of powers" which you seem to cherish, by running the the courts.

Under our system the people do NOT have the right to pass laws which are forbidden by the constitution. The 14th amendment mandates equality.

Absolutly False, this is the revisionist history, reinterpretation, ruth bader ginsburg style of constitutional interpretation. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with equality, it has everything to do with CITIZENSHIP and the segregation of blacks. I challenge you to scale the constitution top to bottom and list your findings of any allusion or mention to abortion and/or marriage.

If the day comes when the majority of the population feel outraged over religion, do you want them to have the power to make following yours a crime? THINK! Be careful what you seek to destroy, because you destroy those protections for yourself as well.

A False Representation. I am not outraged by gays nor am I trying to change anything. I am trying to preserve an institution, YOU are the ones trying to change it.

[SailingCyclops]

Change in a society comes through the legislature, not the courts.

No! Change in society comes from society itself, not by law. There is nothing in our system which mandates social change be banned, or even legislated upon. Societies change, customs change, dress-codes change, morality changes..... all without any interference by the government.

Absolutly False, this is the revisionist history, reinterpretation, ruth bader ginsburg style of constitutional interpretation. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with equality, it has everything to do with CITIZENSHIP and the segregation of blacks. I challenge you to scale the constitution top to bottom and list your findings of any allusion or mention to abortion and/or marriage.

You are completely in error. Read the U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It seems clear to me, as well as many court decisions based on the 14th -- overturning sodomy laws, as well as allowing prisoners to marry -- Equal protection under the law means just that. I see neither any ambiguity or revisionism here. Please explain.

A False Representation. I am not outraged by gays nor am I trying to change anything. I am trying to preserve an institution ...

No one is trying to change any institution. Giving gay people the same rights as you have in no way changes anything. How is this even a mild threat to the institution of marriage? How is correcting an injustice a threat to you or to the social institution?

Bob

[TheLibertarian]

And again you fall back on a puerile defense of "democracy" to "defend an institution" that never actually existed. Protip: there's a reason the Greeks considered an abject democracy the most degenerate form of government.

In any rational system, the courts would be the final arbiter of policy, to keep policy-making as far as possible out of the hands of the masses.

[Ooberman]

I am not outraged by gays nor am I trying to change anything. I am trying to preserve an institution ...

Why would the institution be damaged? What Man+Woman marriage will be harmed?

I simply don't understand what Xians mean by "preserving an institution" with regard to marriage.

It's like people claiming that the definition of voting is one Man casting a vote - and if you allow women or blacks, you destroy the institution of voting... huh?

Please, winepusher, can you help me understand what you mean when you say the institution of marriage will be damage or destroyed?

Also, what other "institutions" are similar to marriage? What other institutions need to be preserved?

[micatala]

We don't live in a democracy thank goodness! That is a fallacy. We live in a constitutional republic. There is a very distinct separation of powers. A good thing. We the people, as well as all other branches of governance must follow the constitution.

All of this is very nice, but does not address the topic. Change in a society comes through the legislature, not the courts. The courts do not make laws, if you or others want a law permitting abortion and/or gay marriage, make it in the legislature. Do NOT undermine the system and "seperation of powers" which you seem to cherish, by running the the courts.

The courts have a role as well. They led society in rectifying racially prejudicial law through, for example, Brown V. Board of Eductation.

Under our system the people do NOT have the right to pass laws which are forbidden by the constitution. The 14th amendment mandates equality.

Absolutly False, this is the revisionist history, reinterpretation, ruth bader ginsburg style of constitutional interpretation. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with equality, it has everything to do with CITIZENSHIP and the segregation of blacks. I challenge you to scale the constitution top to bottom and list your findings of any allusion or mention to abortion and/or marriage.

The 14th amendment is about more than just citizenship, it is also about equality under the law.


Yes, marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. However, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that freedom to marry and have that marriage recognized by the state is a fundamental right.

I cited several such cases in another thread. See Post #450

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=450

The SCOTUS decision in Loving vs. Virginia included the following.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Again, this points out the tradition of considering marriage a fundamental right.

In that same post I referred to Turner v. Safely, a Missouri case. The court in that case wrote.

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements [482 U.S. 78, 96] are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication.

Note the court here is expressing an opinion somewhat at odds with Euphrates' statement regarding the purposes of marriage and the state's involvement in marriage.

The "emotional support and public commitment" of marriage apply just as much to gays as to heterosexuals and provide reasons for considering marriage a fundamental right for gays as well as for heterosexuals.

If these are sufficient reasons to allow felons, who present concrete and documented harms to society, how are they not sufficient to allow gays to marry, in the face of the much more nebulous and hypothetical harms presented to by gays to society??

I do not believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the court for any of these decisions.

If the day comes when the majority of the population feel outraged over religion, do you want them to have the power to make following yours a crime? THINK! Be careful what you seek to destroy, because you destroy those protections for yourself as well.

A False Representation. I am not outraged by gays nor am I trying to change anything. I am trying to preserve an institution, YOU are the ones trying to change it.

I have asked before what exactly do you mean by "preserving the institution?" What real harm is done to marriage by allowing people to marry a person of the same gender? How are existing marries among opposite-sex couples affected by allowing same-sex marriage?

[SailingCyclops]

What real harm is done to marriage by allowing people to marry a person of the same gender? How are existing marries among opposite-sex couples affected by allowing same-sex marriage?

It is obvious that there is no harm. Objections to correcting the discrimination against gays must be rooted in homophobia, just like objections to civil rights was rooted in racism. There is no other rational explanation.

Bob

[micatala]

What real harm is done to marriage by allowing people to marry a person of the same gender? How are existing marries among opposite-sex couples affected by allowing same-sex marriage?

It is obvious that there is no harm. Objections to correcting the discrimination against gays must be rooted in homophobia, just like objections to civil rights was rooted in racism. There is no other rational explanation.

Bob

I actually do not agre that one must be homophobic, however that is defined, to be against gay marriage, although I think homophobia is a significant contributor to that movement.

Some people who are against gay marriage are simply what I would term traditionalists who don't like to see things changed, especially institutions, ideas, or practices, they hold near and dear to their hearts. There may also be irrational aspects to this clinging to tradition, but it does not have to be homophobia.

[Veronicdiall]

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.

Hello;

Can you please provide me with proof that the 52% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 did so on religious grounds.

Thanks