Prop 8

[Orogun01]

A lot of the stuff quoted from Liviticus is the stuff you can do, not stuff you have to do (bearing in mind those things were allowed 3500 years ago) Most of the stuff you have to do only applies to Jews. The stuff about the altar doesn't apply to anyone right now as there's no altar.

Couldn't you had said that before I went and bought a cow?

[Wrath of Dagon]

You can still eat it, but not the thighs.

[deleteduser]

Just wanted to share a letter I go back to and read every so often. http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/000504.html

 

And one of my favorite videos that I find myself coming back to again and again.

[Calax]

Interestingly enough, in the Daily Show commentary they were amazed at a couple of the objections brought up. Obviously there is the political/moral one (the judge apparently said that prop 8 was unfairly imposing a particular moral belief on anyone in the state), and then Cavuto of Fox said that there are economic implications because all of a sudden gay couples get married and companies have to pay insurance for two (and yet somehow "normal" folk don't have this happen...). And the last one raised by a woman on Anderson Cooper (the guest obviously) was that the judge was bias. When pressed why on TV she said "I don't know" but Stewart went to her web site where it turns out the guy is an openly gay judge...

 

An openly gay judge who'd been shot down as a nominee under REGAN for being TO CONSERVATIVE.

 

That takes a little..... soaking in to really hit home.

[Orogun01]

Interestingly enough, in the Daily Show commentary they were amazed at a couple of the objections brought up. Obviously there is the political/moral one (the judge apparently said that prop 8 was unfairly imposing a particular moral belief on anyone in the state), and then Cavuto of Fox said that there are economic implications because all of a sudden gay couples get married and companies have to pay insurance for two (and yet somehow "normal" folk don't have this happen...). And the last one raised by a woman on Anderson Cooper (the guest obviously) was that the judge was bias. When pressed why on TV she said "I don't know" but Stewart went to her web site where it turns out the guy is an openly gay judge...

 

An openly gay judge who'd been shot down as a nominee under REGAN for being TO CONSERVATIVE.

 

That takes a little..... soaking in to really hit home.

None of those are reasons to deny gays marriage.

[Volourn]

"But at least somone could finally expliain the appeal of Curling."

 

The majority of Kanadians don't know what the appeal of curling is. I certainly don't.

[Calax]

Interestingly enough, in the Daily Show commentary they were amazed at a couple of the objections brought up. Obviously there is the political/moral one (the judge apparently said that prop 8 was unfairly imposing a particular moral belief on anyone in the state), and then Cavuto of Fox said that there are economic implications because all of a sudden gay couples get married and companies have to pay insurance for two (and yet somehow "normal" folk don't have this happen...). And the last one raised by a woman on Anderson Cooper (the guest obviously) was that the judge was bias. When pressed why on TV she said "I don't know" but Stewart went to her web site where it turns out the guy is an openly gay judge...

 

An openly gay judge who'd been shot down as a nominee under REGAN for being TO CONSERVATIVE.

 

That takes a little..... soaking in to really hit home.

None of those are reasons to deny gays marriage.

Not saying they were. But those were the objections by people to the ruling. Palin was "The will of the people has been quashed by the third branch of the government!" (who's just doing their constitutionally mandated duty, go figure). Cavuto thinks that nobody married should have a job, and random woman thinks that the judge is incredibly bias.

[Guard Dog]

The more I think about this, the more I do not like it. For this to be an Equal Protection clause argument the judge must find that a fundamental right is being denied. There is no federal right to marry. In fact aside from tax law the federal government takes no stance on marriage at all therefore it's a 10th amendment issue and the voters of California had every right to expect that their vote on Prop 8 to be the final law of the state and safe from federal meddling. That is how the United States is supposed to work. This judge decided enteirely on his own that there IS a federal right to marry and used that as cover to strike down Prop 8. He called it a moral imperitive no less than three times in his decision. For any judge to apply a moral imperative to a decision is a little scary. Another judge might find it a moral imperative that chldren be required to pray in school, or that abortion be made illegal to protect the life of the child. This is judicial activisim and that is why I think his ruling should and will be overturned. The powers that be will make it a politcal issue and rant that the appellate judges or SCOTUS judges were homophobic but the truth is, it does not matter how a judge feels about an issue, their job is to follow tha law. Has Walker done that, he would have been crucified but he would have been right.

 

Don't get me wromg, I do not support Prop 8 and would have never voted for it, but it could have and should have been remved the same was it was created, at the ballot box. When one man can single handedly thwart the will of seven million people out republic has taken a long step towards it's destruction.

[Orogun01]

The more I think about this, the more I do not like it. For this to be an Equal Protection clause argument the judge must find that a fundamental right is being denied. There is no federal right to marry. In fact aside from tax law the federal government takes no stance on marriage at all therefore it's a 10th amendment issue and the voters of California had every right to expect that their vote on Prop 8 to be the final law of the state and safe from federal meddling. That is how the United States is supposed to work. This judge decided enteirely on his own that there IS a federal right to marry and used that as cover to strike down Prop 8. He called it a moral imperitive no less than three times in his decision. For any judge to apply a moral imperative to a decision is a little scary. Another judge might find it a moral imperative that chldren be required to pray in school, or that abortion be made illegal to protect the life of the child. This is judicial activisim and that is why I think his ruling should and will be overturned. The powers that be will make it a politcal issue and rant that the appellate judges or SCOTUS judges were homophobic but the truth is, it does not matter how a judge feels about an issue, their job is to follow tha law. Has Walker done that, he would have been crucified but he would have been right.

 

Don't get me wromg, I do not support Prop 8 and would have never voted for it, but it could have and should have been remved the same was it was created, at the ballot box. When one man can single handedly thwart the will of seven million people out republic has taken a long step towards it's destruction.

There is a right to the pursuit of happiness and to self direction. Also under the ninth amendment protects anyone's right from being taken away by a majority consensus.

As for the judge's bias, only a gay judge will actually approve of this. It is an obvious bias but still a correct decision.

[Calax]

The more I think about this, the more I do not like it. For this to be an Equal Protection clause argument the judge must find that a fundamental right is being denied. There is no federal right to marry. In fact aside from tax law the federal government takes no stance on marriage at all therefore it's a 10th amendment issue and the voters of California had every right to expect that their vote on Prop 8 to be the final law of the state and safe from federal meddling. That is how the United States is supposed to work. This judge decided enteirely on his own that there IS a federal right to marry and used that as cover to strike down Prop 8. He called it a moral imperitive no less than three times in his decision. For any judge to apply a moral imperative to a decision is a little scary. Another judge might find it a moral imperative that chldren be required to pray in school, or that abortion be made illegal to protect the life of the child. This is judicial activisim and that is why I think his ruling should and will be overturned. The powers that be will make it a politcal issue and rant that the appellate judges or SCOTUS judges were homophobic but the truth is, it does not matter how a judge feels about an issue, their job is to follow tha law. Has Walker done that, he would have been crucified but he would have been right.

 

Don't get me wromg, I do not support Prop 8 and would have never voted for it, but it could have and should have been remved the same was it was created, at the ballot box. When one man can single handedly thwart the will of seven million people out republic has taken a long step towards it's destruction.

Wouldn't this also apply to the rights of minorities looking for work and housing in different districts, but get discriminated against because of skin color? And yet those rights are constitutionally guaranteed, even if they don't fall under the strict application of the constitution.

[Guard Dog]

The more I think about this, the more I do not like it. For this to be an Equal Protection clause argument the judge must find that a fundamental right is being denied. There is no federal right to marry. In fact aside from tax law the federal government takes no stance on marriage at all therefore it's a 10th amendment issue and the voters of California had every right to expect that their vote on Prop 8 to be the final law of the state and safe from federal meddling. That is how the United States is supposed to work. This judge decided enteirely on his own that there IS a federal right to marry and used that as cover to strike down Prop 8. He called it a moral imperitive no less than three times in his decision. For any judge to apply a moral imperative to a decision is a little scary. Another judge might find it a moral imperative that chldren be required to pray in school, or that abortion be made illegal to protect the life of the child. This is judicial activisim and that is why I think his ruling should and will be overturned. The powers that be will make it a politcal issue and rant that the appellate judges or SCOTUS judges were homophobic but the truth is, it does not matter how a judge feels about an issue, their job is to follow tha law. Has Walker done that, he would have been crucified but he would have been right.

 

Don't get me wromg, I do not support Prop 8 and would have never voted for it, but it could have and should have been remved the same was it was created, at the ballot box. When one man can single handedly thwart the will of seven million people out republic has taken a long step towards it's destruction.

Wouldn't this also apply to the rights of minorities looking for work and housing in different districts, but get discriminated against because of skin color? And yet those rights are constitutionally guaranteed, even if they don't fall under the strict application of the constitution.

Thats a little different because it IS against the law to discriminate solely on the basis or race, gender, etc. It is not against any federal law to bar same sex marriages because there is no federal law recognizing marriage. That is a state perrogative and the supreme law of the state is ultimately the voters, who in this case have been usurped.

 

@Orogun actually the 9th Amendment could be used to make an even stronger case against Walker decision since it is an over zealous application of federal law limiting the ability of the voters of CA to self govern. This is what justice Stanley Reed meant when he referred to "found power". But I could turn it around and make the same argument in favor of Walkers ruling by asserting (as Walker did) that the 9th and 14th Amandments prevent a governeing body from restricting invidiual liberty. There is just two problems with that arguement 1) marriage is not a right, 2) Gays are not barred from getting married, they are just restricted from marrying each other.

 

This is a pretty interesting case, I'm really curious how it will turn out. The best possible outcome would be for the case to be renedered moot by another ballot initiative in CA to repeal prop 8 before is can make it through the appelate process.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

The more I think about this, the more I do not like it. For this to be an Equal Protection clause argument the judge must find that a fundamental right is being denied. There is no federal right to marry. In fact aside from tax law the federal government takes no stance on marriage at all therefore it's a 10th amendment issue and the voters of California had every right to expect that their vote on Prop 8 to be the final law of the state and safe from federal meddling. That is how the United States is supposed to work. This judge decided enteirely on his own that there IS a federal right to marry and used that as cover to strike down Prop 8. He called it a moral imperitive no less than three times in his decision. For any judge to apply a moral imperative to a decision is a little scary. Another judge might find it a moral imperative that chldren be required to pray in school, or that abortion be made illegal to protect the life of the child. This is judicial activisim and that is why I think his ruling should and will be overturned. The powers that be will make it a politcal issue and rant that the appellate judges or SCOTUS judges were homophobic but the truth is, it does not matter how a judge feels about an issue, their job is to follow tha law. Has Walker done that, he would have been crucified but he would have been right.

 

Don't get me wromg, I do not support Prop 8 and would have never voted for it, but it could have and should have been remved the same was it was created, at the ballot box. When one man can single handedly thwart the will of seven million people out republic has taken a long step towards it's destruction.

Wouldn't this also apply to the rights of minorities looking for work and housing in different districts, but get discriminated against because of skin color? And yet those rights are constitutionally guaranteed, even if they don't fall under the strict application of the constitution.

Thats a little different because it IS against the law to discriminate solely on the basis or race, gender, etc. It is not against any federal law to bar same sex marriages because there is no federal law recognizing marriage. That is a state perrogative and the supreme law of the state is ultimately the voters, who in this case have been usurped.

It wasn't until an "activist judge" declared it against the law to discriminate. I mean hell, schools aren't even mandated in the lovely constitution people love to squeal about and yet a persons right to access a school equally was confirmed as a constitutional right by Brown v Board of Education. Are you trying to seriously tell me that marriage (a religious institution at its core and probably shouldn't have any form of state support or benefit inherent to it) isn't in a similar situation constitutionally as the access to public schools/equipment/facilities?

[Hurlshort]

If you really want a fair popular vote over the matter, then only gay people should be allowed to vote on the issue, as it solely affects them.

 

As for the Federal government stepping in being a sign of the apocalypse, that is just not going to happen. The Federal government has stepped in on much larger issues. I don't see how a Federal decision on marriage is larger than slavery, or segregation, or Jim Crow laws, or even Health Care. State versus Federal power has been disputed since the founding of our nation, and it will keep being disputed long after I am dead and buried.

[Gromnir]

If you really want a fair popular vote over the matter, then only gay people should be allowed to vote on the issue, as it solely affects them.

 

As for the Federal government stepping in being a sign of the apocalypse, that is just not going to happen. The Federal government has stepped in on much larger issues. I don't see how a Federal decision on marriage is larger than slavery, or segregation, or Jim Crow laws, or even Health Care. State versus Federal power has been disputed since the founding of our nation, and it will keep being disputed long after I am dead and buried.

 

is not a matter of the Fed stepping in to fix problems. is the appropriateness of the judiciary stepping in and attempting to fix purely social problems. segregation is a perfect example. after the Court forced desegregation, w/o any genuine legal precedent to support their action, the result were actual increased racial tensions in the south and a reversal o' positive desegregation trends in the South. it weren't until Congress passed civil rights legislation a full decade after Brown 1 & 2 that any genuine positive desegregation were taking place. the example o' George Wallace, while anecdotal, were noteworthy as it exemplifies how many southerners reacted to Brown v. Board. g. wallace had been a moderate southern democrat who had actually been endorsed by the NAACP during his run for the governorship in 1958. wallace loses his bid to be governor and observed that, "I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again." wallace becomes a hard-line segregationist and wins the 1962 alabama gubernatorial election by a landslide:

 

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

 

...

 

gay marriage, thankfully, is different than segregation. the Courts didn't have effective means to enforce desegregation, and they were woeful unsuited to implementing effective plans for desegregation. gay marriage requires no such complex enforcement and implementation mechanisms. also, while some folks in CA and elsewhere is very strong opposed to gay marriage, the ca prop 8 vote were a close thing. the majority spoke when they voted for prop 8, but it weren't a particular overwhelming majority. conversely, there ain't no way in hell you is gonna see a unanimous Court rule in favor o' gay marriage. one Justice literal got off his deathbed to make sure that Brown were unanimous.

 

is easy for us enlightened folks to sneer at our plebeian and backwards fellow californians. college educated white folks is having considerable more than 50% support o' gay marriage, regardless o' party affiliation. this is less a conservative v. liberal issue as some might think.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

@Orogun actually the 9th Amendment could be used to make an even stronger case against Walker decision since it is an over zealous application of federal law limiting the ability of the voters of CA to self govern. This is what justice Stanley Reed meant when he referred to "found power". But I could turn it around and make the same argument in favor of Walkers ruling by asserting (as Walker did) that the 9th and 14th Amandments prevent a governeing body from restricting invidiual liberty. There is just two problems with that arguement 1) marriage is not a right, 2) Gays are not barred from getting married, they are just restricted from marrying each other.

 

This is a pretty interesting case, I'm really curious how it will turn out. The best possible outcome would be for the case to be renedered moot by another ballot initiative in CA to repeal prop 8 before is can make it through the appelate process.

I always saw the 9th amendment as a way to protect minorities against a tyrannical consensus.

Whilst marrying may itself not be a right the "pursuit of happiness" is listed as an unalienable right on the Declaration of Independence and as such is one of the founding ideals of the US. The argument against gay marriage has always been a theological one, made by people who supplant morality with religion. There is no legal reason to deny same sex marriage.

 

Hopefully, it will stay this way and Democracy won't get in the way.

[Gromnir]

"There is no legal reason to deny same sex marriage."

 

*groan*

 

say you thinks that there is no good or rational reason and you at least have an argument, but say "no legal" ignores the reality that the weight o' precedent is very much against same sex marriage.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

I've always been in favour of getting rid of marriage altogether. There, problem solved.

[Humodour]

I've always been in favour of getting rid of marriage altogether. There, problem solved.

 

Agreed!

[Guard Dog]

I've always been in favour of getting rid of marriage altogether. There, problem solved.

 

Agreed!

Seconded! That particular institution has not exactly done right by me.

[Guard Dog]

Like Grom said, this really is not a conservative vs liberal issue. I am by the standards of this board, quite conservative and I have no problem at all with same sex marriage. Everyone should be free to live their lives. But twisting the law to compel people to do what they oppose has bad side effects and is usually counterproductive in the end. Groms example of Brown v Board is a good one. The court is not an agent of social engineering, turning it into one is a bad... bad.. terrible thing even if you agree with the outcome. Remember, next time you may not.

 

@Orgun, the pursuit of happiness is not codified into law in any way. That is an individual liberty that while broad is somewhat restricted by law. It would make me happy to smoke pot and rob banks but obviously I can't because there are laws that restrict me from doing so.

[Orogun01]

"There is no legal reason to deny same sex marriage."

 

*groan*

 

say you thinks that there is no good or rational reason and you at least have an argument, but say "no legal" ignores the reality that the weight o' precedent is very much against same sex marriage.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Could you cite examples, please?

 

@Orgun, the pursuit of happiness is not codified into law in any way. That is an individual liberty that while broad is somewhat restricted by law. It would make me happy to smoke pot and rob banks but obviously I can't because there are laws that restrict me from doing so.

It is not a law, but it is cited on a document that tried to set the founding values of the new republic.That by itself makes it clear that forefathers didn't want to deprive anyone of a natural right. They are unalienable rights, self-evident and not just individual liberties.

The reason you can't smoke pot (there are various reason for the legalization of drugs on the US mostly having to do with Americans not having a sense of moderation) or rob a bank is because they hurt other people, gay marriage doesn't.

[Calax]

I think that saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have a position to defend the rights of those who are being discriminated against kinda goes against the point of the Supreme Court. The court is there to knock down laws that are considered against the constitution and the Court, via precedent, has shown that these issues are a matter of constitutional merit weather you like it or not.

 

Saying that "things will get worse if you do this" is not a justification for allowing discrimination to continue under any circumstances.

[Gromnir]

"There is no legal reason to deny same sex marriage."

 

*groan*

 

say you thinks that there is no good or rational reason and you at least have an argument, but say "no legal" ignores the reality that the weight o' precedent is very much against same sex marriage.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Could you cite examples, please?

 

@Orgun, the pursuit of happiness is not codified into law in any way. That is an individual liberty that while broad is somewhat restricted by law. It would make me happy to smoke pot and rob banks but obviously I can't because there are laws that restrict me from doing so.

It is not a law, but it is cited on a document that tried to set the founding values of the new republic.That by itself makes it clear that forefathers didn't want to deprive anyone of a natural right. They are unalienable rights, self-evident and not just individual liberties.

The reason you can't smoke pot (there are various reason for the legalization of drugs on the US mostly having to do with Americans not having a sense of moderation) or rob a bank is because they hurt other people, gay marriage doesn't.

 

 

honestly, you folks read "pursuit of happiness" and think it conveys tangible legal rights? and as for precedent... this would be easier with westlaw, but unless you have a subscription you is outta luck. use findlaw and search same-sex marriage. should lead you to:

 

Baker v. Nelson

 

Jones v. Hallahan

 

Singer v. Hara

 

Thorton v. Timmers

 

Matter of Estate of Cooper

 

Dean v. District of Columbia

 

etc.

 

and those is some o' the specific gay marriage cases we recollect. can expand and include the cases that simply recognize that homosexuals not get no suspect class status and list would needs be tripled. most states that adopt same-sex marriage via the courts does so through application o' State Constitutional law precisely 'cause the Fed is a seeming dead end for homosexual issues. The SCOTUS has never recognized homosexuals as a suspect class, which makes equal protection claims an uphill battle for gays. Similarly, the Court does not recognize Same-Sex marriage as a fundamental right, so due process options is likewise doa. call it stupid or unfair, but the weight o' the Fed Con Law is clear against gay marriage.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Exactly! This is at best a state issue to be decided by voters in each state or the legislature of each state. Right or wrong the voters of California said no to gay marriage. The only recourse gays have is to begin a ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8, try to get the folks in Sacramento to do it, or move to Hawaii, Vermont, Iowa or one of the other states that have legalized same sex marriage.

 

You do not want unelected and unaccountable federal judges practicing heavy handed judicial activisim and trampling all over the law as they do it. This time you might agree with the outcome, I promise you there will come a a time when you are horrified by it.

 

I hope Walkers ruling is overturned and he is rebuked for over reaching.

[Calax]

Exactly! This is at best a state issue to be decided by voters in each state or the legislature of each state. Right or wrong the voters of California said no to gay marriage. The only recourse gays have is to begin a ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8, try to get the folks in Sacramento to do it, or move to Hawaii, Vermont, Iowa or one of the other states that have legalized same sex marriage.

 

You do not want unelected and unaccountable federal judges practicing heavy handed judicial activisim and trampling all over the law as they do it. This time you might agree with the outcome, I promise you there will come a a time when you are horrified by it.

 

I hope Walkers ruling is overturned and he is rebuked for over reaching.

Can't be any more horrifying than the excesses of the previous presidential administration.