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.

[WinePusher]

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.

It is unfortunate to see the voice of the American people continually being silenced and spat upon.

[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.

It is unfortunate to see the voice of the American people continually being silenced and spat upon.

Not always. Sometimes the voice of the masses needs to be silenced in cases of clear tyranny and evil. Human Rights, such as this, is one of those cases.

We are a democracy, but one built on the respect of other human beings - not with respect to religious ideology.

[Slopeshoulder]

I am thrilled.
Just like when they integrated the schools and sent george wallace home.

Let's hope/pray the SCOTUS follows suit.
Then maybe next we can arrest people for sedition and treason when they arm up and talk about federal tyranny and overthrow.
Score one for for god and truth and love. And for america.
Did I mention I was thrilled?

BTW, It's Barry's B-day today!
Feeling the center-lefty love!

[WinePusher]

It is unfortunate to see the voice of the American people continually being silenced and spat upon.

Not always. Sometimes the voice of the masses needs to be silenced in cases of clear tyranny and evil. Human Rights, such as this, is one of those cases.

We are a democracy, but one built on the respect of other human beings - not with respect to religious ideology.

I would think it be fair to have a Judge who wasn't gay decide this case, and in a courthouse other than san francisco. SCOTUS will undoubtably overturn tihs 5-4, so I wouldn't declare it a victory yet.

[Ooberman]

It is unfortunate to see the voice of the American people continually being silenced and spat upon.

Not always. Sometimes the voice of the masses needs to be silenced in cases of clear tyranny and evil. Human Rights, such as this, is one of those cases.

We are a democracy, but one built on the respect of other human beings - not with respect to religious ideology.

I would think it be fair to have a Judge who wasn't gay decide this case, and in a courthouse other than san francisco. SCOTUS will undoubtably overturn tihs 5-4, so I wouldn't declare it a victory yet.

I guess that is going to be quite a clarion call for the Right: the judge might be gay.

Oh no!

Well, if you think it has an impact on his ruling, then I don't think it fair that a straight judge sit for the case!

Tell, me, Winepusher, what is wrong with a gay judge presiding? You don't want gays to get married, and now you don't want them to be judges?

What more?

And, SCOTUS might overturn it, but what about State's Rights?

[Slopeshoulder]

Winepusher (forgot to hit quote):

The judge was gay? What (non-fringe) source told you that? I don't deny it, I just never heard it. Maybe it was consuidered irrelevant?
I agree that the appearance of a conflict of interest might be there, but he does have a sworn duty to uphold. I mistakenly assumed it was a panel of three. And no one predicted a slam dunk. Remember, he's an appellate judge; they're the grownups. Was he ever asked to recuse himself based on his (alleged) orientation?

"Undoubtedly" is a prediction leaving no room for doubt. Sounds like you're already counting this defeat as a victory? You may be right. But time will tell.
But wouldn't limiting rights here be against the spirit of true legal conservatism (as oppossed to cultural reactionism)?

[Ooberman]

Winepusher (forgot to hit quote):

The judge was gay? What (non-fringe) source told you that? I don't deny it, I just never heard it. Maybe it was consuidered irrelevant?
I agree that the appearance of a conflict of interest might be there, but he does have a sworn duty to uphold. I mistakenly assumed it was a panel of three. And no one predicted a slam dunk. Remember, he's an appellate judge; they're the grownups. Was he ever asked to recuse himself based on his (alleged) orientation?

"Undoubtedly" is a prediction leaving no room for doubt. Sounds like you're already counting this defeat as a victory? You may be right. But time will tell.
But wouldn't limiting rights here be against the spirit of true legal conservatism (as oppossed to cultural reactionism)?

Why would a gay judge recuse himself?

Should a straight judge recuse himself? Should a man judge recuse himself if the it is the interest of Men?

Should a black judge recuse himself on racial hate crime? Why?

[Slopeshoulder]

Winepusher (forgot to hit quote):

The judge was gay? What (non-fringe) source told you that? I don't deny it, I just never heard it. Maybe it was consuidered irrelevant?
I agree that the appearance of a conflict of interest might be there, but he does have a sworn duty to uphold. I mistakenly assumed it was a panel of three. And no one predicted a slam dunk. Remember, he's an appellate judge; they're the grownups. Was he ever asked to recuse himself based on his (alleged) orientation?

"Undoubtedly" is a prediction leaving no room for doubt. Sounds like you're already counting this defeat as a victory? You may be right. But time will tell.
But wouldn't limiting rights here be against the spirit of true legal conservatism (as oppossed to cultural reactionism)?

Why would a gay judge recuse himself?

Should a straight judge recuse himself? Should a man judge recuse himself if the it is the interest of Men?

Should a black judge recuse himself on racial hate crime? Why?

NO!
I asked if he was ever ASKED to recuse himself, implying no and no reason.
We agree.

[Ooberman]

Winepusher (forgot to hit quote):

The judge was gay? What (non-fringe) source told you that? I don't deny it, I just never heard it. Maybe it was consuidered irrelevant?
I agree that the appearance of a conflict of interest might be there, but he does have a sworn duty to uphold. I mistakenly assumed it was a panel of three. And no one predicted a slam dunk. Remember, he's an appellate judge; they're the grownups. Was he ever asked to recuse himself based on his (alleged) orientation?

"Undoubtedly" is a prediction leaving no room for doubt. Sounds like you're already counting this defeat as a victory? You may be right. But time will tell.
But wouldn't limiting rights here be against the spirit of true legal conservatism (as oppossed to cultural reactionism)?

Why would a gay judge recuse himself?

Should a straight judge recuse himself? Should a man judge recuse himself if the it is the interest of Men?

Should a black judge recuse himself on racial hate crime? Why?

NO!
I asked if he was ever ASKED to recuse himself, implying no and no reason.
We agree.

YEah, sorry, I wasn't really talking to you but addressing the issue you brought up but as if it were an argument by winepusher - yes, we agree!