Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

MagicMarker

This judge should be president.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

MagicMarker

10 minutes without a reply? Where is everyone on this joyous occasion?

AnonoBoy

MagicMarker wrote: »

10 minutes without a reply? Where is everyone on this joyous occasion?

We're all out getting gay-married!

staker

Will they do a Maastricht on it and put it back to the electorate until they legalise it?

Up de Barrs

It would be a great outcome if the US supreme court was to rule that same sex couples had an equal right to marry. The supreme court currently has a conservative majority but if President Obama gets to make appointment a liberal it may tip the balance.

ScumLord

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

Is he any relation?

MagicMarker

ScumLord wrote: »

Is he any relation?

Why? Is one of those two guys standing next to Chuck Norris also called Walker?

starbelgrade

Does that mean that Orange County is now Pink County?

rainbow kirby

Fantastic news, the entire judgement is a giant F*CK YOU to the homophobes.

Links234

great news!

Klingon Hamlet

Brilliant, about time they sorted that out!:)

Shouldn't this be in LGBT section? After Hours tends to attract rather unsavoury comments. Just saying...

Nicolala

Wonderful news!

bronte

A step in the right direction.

Raedwald

Good man that judge, wonderful news.

philologos

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

Ruu_Old

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Brilliant, about time they sorted that out!:)

Shouldn't this be in LGBT section? After Hours tends to attract rather unsavoury comments. Just saying...

That's what you want, isn't it?!? Everyone in their own little groups and boxes. You hate the ghey! :eek::mad:

AnonoBoy

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

Sometimes things need to be changed for the good of a country.

In the 1960's some states in America would have undoubtedly voted against integration of schools if they'd been given the option.

starbelgrade

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

We are talking about the USA here - it'd hardly be the first time that happened.

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

Do you REALLY think it's right that a majority of people should discriminate against a minority? That sounds like one of the furthest things from democracy I could think of

Jumpy

Bummer.














Ah no Im kiddin.

rainbow kirby

Links234 wrote: »

Do you REALLY think it's right that a majority of people should discriminate against a minority? That sounds like one of the furthest things from democracy I could think of

This springs to mind.

Chuchoter

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

Equal rights.
Yes.....Terrible.:rolleyes:

Donkey Oaty

Links234 wrote: »

Do you REALLY think it's right that a majority of people should discriminate against a minority? That sounds like one of the furthest things from democracy I could think of

Sadly, it's democratic. AKA the tyrrany of the majority.

AnonoBoy

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This springs to mind.

Hmmmm...... Opressilicious.....

dsmythy

Was the original vote on the same day as the presidential elections? Have them vote again and I bet you'll find California approve gay marriage. Oh and being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe.

MagicMarker

dsmythy wrote: »

Oh and being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe.

Nope, just an oppressive zealot.

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

They live in a Republic with a Constitution, not in a simple 'majority rules' democracy.

Thank God.

staker wrote: »

Will they do a Maastricht on it and put it back to the electorate until they legalise it?

There's nothing to put back to the people. It was a piece of legislation that was brought in, voted on and now found to be unconstitutional. If a piece of legislation is unconstitutional you don't go back to the people with it, one way or the other. Well, you could, but it would be a bit redundant, and wouldn't make any difference.

Anyway, of course, this will wind its way up the courts. It's not the end of the story. But as judgments go, it's a pretty big kick in the balls to anti-gay campaigners. It comes down very negatively on them. But that's not too surprising...the original defendants of Prop 8 didn't even support it in court (i.e. the Attorney General and Arnie), and the defense barely called any witnesses vs the 18 experts of the plaintiffs.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

I'm curious Jakkass...honestly now, do you think you would have made that post if the situation was reversed? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt man but......

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

Do you REALLY think it's right that a majority of people should discriminate against a minority? That sounds like one of the furthest things from democracy I could think of

I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power.

Judicial activism is something I have a distinct dislike for, and have had a dislike for ever since I studied about it when I took politics at university. I think the vote of the people is the best way to make significant changes to relationship and family structures. It rings more of aristocracy rather than democracy.

On a personal level, I support retaining traditional marriage, and pursuing civil partnerships.

Having said that, even though I oppose altering marriage, I would have respected this more if the people of California voted for this rather than having it imposed top down by a judge, who in this case could be argued to be biased in his judgement.

Links234

I would hope that if the majority of people in this country voted for all religious people to be rounded up and put into re-education programs to purge them of beliefs in gods and spirits and juju and santa, you'd be supportive of that?

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

I would hope that if the majority of people in this country voted for all religious people to be rounded up and put into re-education programs to purge them of beliefs in gods and spirits and juju and santa, you'd be supportive of that?

It's nowhere near as extreme as that. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships, but rather that they should be recognised as civil partnerships rather than de-facto marriages. If the people of California felt that was best in a referendum, that should be respected. That's their prerogative, and if the people of California wish to change that they should do it themselves via referendum rather than have it imposed by a judge.

argonaut

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

Call me crazy, Jakkass, but I don't think people's rights should be subject to a majority vote. The great unwashed masses shouldn't be able to decide what rights people have, IMO. Incidentally, that's why I dislike having referendums on issues like abortion, but that's another thread...

Anyway, s someone posted earlier, a majority in the Deep South back in the 1960s would probably have voted in favour of keeping racial segregation, for example, and surely you agree that that shouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of the majority"?

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power.

Judicial activism is something I have a distinct dislike for, and have had a dislike for ever since I studied about it when I took politics at university. I think the vote of the people is the best way to make significant changes to relationship and family structures. It rings more of aristocracy rather than democracy.

That smacks of a soundbite taken straight of right wing blogs. The aristocracy bit, I mean. I always chuckle when I hear that.

It is nice when social change has a resounding popular endorsement, for sure. But most modern democratic systems have a series of checks and balances as does the United States. Whilst nothing is perfect, the reasons for such systems are very sound and very obvious. If you have a set of fundamentals, like a constitution, the will of the people means NOTHING if it is incompatible with that.

On a side note, conservatives are typically super defensive of the constitution, but in this case they seem to not care. It's funny how that works.

Jakkass wrote: »

Having said that, even though I oppose altering marriage, I would have respected this more if the people of California voted for this rather than having it imposed top down by a judge, who in this case could be argued to be biased in his judgement.

Find me someone who's not biased.

Would he be unbiased if he was straight?

Would he be unbiased if he hadn't been appointed as a conservative judge by Reagan?

Despite his sexual orientation he has actually ruled against gay plaintiffs on issues in the past - in fact, his original appointment to the bench was challenged by Democrats on the grounds that he was 'insensitive to gays and the poor'.

Read the judgment and consider carefully if he came to the wrong decision based on the case brought before him. The defense for prop 8 barely showed up. The case against it was remarkably compelling and well argued and supported by the evidence presented. He wasn't going out on a limb here based on the case presented, it was a very 'water is wet, sky is blue' kind of judgment.

bronte

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nowhere near as extreme as that. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships, but rather that they should be recognised as civil partnerships rather than de-facto marriages.

Do you consider civil partnership equal to marriage?

If not, why should LGBT couples not have the right to an equal "formal" relationship?

scientific1982

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm very interested to see how this will turn out when appealed. I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

Sometimes the democratic will of the people isnt right or just.

Mike 1972

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships.

Are you sure ?

philologos

argonaut wrote: »

Call me crazy, Jakkass, but I don't think people's rights should be subject to a majority vote. The great unwashed masses shouldn't be able to decide what rights people have, IMO. Incidentally, that's why I dislike having referendums on issues like abortion, but that's another thread...

I don't believe that essential legislation that changes the way of life for an entire State, or country should be imposed by a set of judge, or in some cases a single judge.

I think that the status of the referendum in altering our constitution in Ireland is perhaps one of the best things about it. We decide what our country should stand for, and what it shouldn't.

I think the Swiss model is considerably better though, in that it allows constituents to propose a referendum to change the constitution with 50,000 backers.

argonaut wrote: »

Anyway, s someone posted earlier, a majority in the Deep South back in the 1960s would probably have voted in favour of keeping racial segregation, for example, and surely you agree that that shouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of the majority"?

This assumes that sexuality is biologically determined in the same way that race is. I wouldn't hold to that assumption personally.

LookingFor wrote: »

That smacks of a soundbite taken straight of right wing blogs. The aristocracy bit, I mean. I always chuckle when I hear that.

If you wish to chuckle that's up to you. As for me, I'm going to try respect everyone all around and have a good discussion!

LookingFor wrote: »

It is nice when social change has a resounding popular endorsement, for sure. But most modern democratic systems have a series of checks and balances as does the United States. Whilst nothing is perfect, the reasons for such systems are very sound and very obvious. If you have a set of fundamentals, like a constitution, the will of the people means NOTHING if it is incompatible with that.

See what I said about the merits of other systems to argonaut.

LookingFor wrote: »

On a side note, conservatives are typically super defensive of the constitution, but in this case they seem to not care. It's funny how that works.

Interesting that you say this. I'm suspecting it is because the Constitution is unclear in respect to the prospect of legalising gay marriage, pretty much along the same reasoning that our own Constitution is unclear on it. In the case of our judges they ruled that because Eamon DeValera wasn't thinking that way in 1937 that it was probably his intention to define marriage between a man and a woman.

I'll have to read more about what sections of the US Constitution he used to justify his position.

LookingFor wrote: »

Find me someone who's not biased.

Would he be unbiased if he was straight?

Would he be unbiased if he hadn't been appointed as a conservative judge by Reagan?

That's the problem with judicial activism. Judges can be completely out of touch with the actual electorate, whereas the electorate can give the broader opinion as to what their society really wants.

If society in California wants to keep the traditional definition of marriage, then I think that's worthy of being respected, particularly when people of LGBT orientation can formalise their relationships in civil unions.

LookingFor wrote: »

Read the judgment and consider carefully if he came to the wrong decision based on the case brought before him. The defense for prop 8 barely showed up. The case against it was remarkably compelling and well argued and supported by the evidence presented. He wasn't going out on a limb here based on the case presented, it was a very 'water is wet, sky is blue' kind of judgment.

I'll take a look at it tomorrow, but I'm still a little bit suspicious at the whole thing to be honest with you.

Mike 1972: Good point.

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nowhere near as extreme as that.

doesn't matter if it's that extreme or not, would you support something as long as the majority are in favour of it?

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

doesn't matter if it's that extreme or not, would you support something as long as the majority are in favour of it?

Of course it matters! It would be completely taking something out of context otherwise. I'll entertain it briefly though.

I would recognise that it was a democratic decision, but in that case I would probably end up violating such a law, personally.

I think marriage and family structures are hugely important, and that's why I support the people of California making a decision rather than judges. If the people of California changed this for themselves, I personally would regard that as their decision. A decision I would personally disagree with, but none the less an entirely democratic decision.

Stinicker

The gays in California have just scored probably the biggest own goal in their campaign thus far. The judge who just overturned this is hemself gay and this clearly violates the democratic will of the Californian people. The minority will never unsurp the majority and Cali is nowhere near as liberal people are lead to beleive.

This will plank the issue firmly on the November agenda and it will be squashed firmly by the Latino and Black vote allied strongly with the conservative white vote. No gay judge will decide what is legal and what is not and the rule of majority is what counts or else there is no rule at all.

Thank goodness we have a clear cut way of doing things in this country and have an entire system in place to make sure political f*ck ups like this does not happen.

Mark200

Up de Barrs wrote: »

It would be a great outcome if the US supreme court was to rule that same sex couples had an equal right to marry. The supreme court currently has a conservative majority but if President Obama gets to make appointment a liberal it may tip the balance.

That would be great, but I'd imagine it's very unlikely to happen. Also, Obama has already appointed a Supreme Court Justice... and is about to appoint another. He has nominated Elena Kagan, and the Senate is expected to vote on her nomination today (Thursday). So that would be two appointments that he has made.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nowhere near as extreme as that. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships, but rather that they should be recognised as civil partnerships rather than de-facto marriages. If the people of California felt that was best in a referendum, that should be respected. That's their prerogative, and if the people of California wish to change that they should do it themselves via referendum rather than have it imposed by a judge.

A majority vote in one state is not enough to change the constitution. The judge ruled the law is unconstitutional. Not that he just didn't like it. The US Constitution trumps state law, by a long shot.

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

See what I said about the merits of other systems to argonaut.

You can keep saying that 'with certain stuff the people should be supreme' but that continues to ignore the presence of a constitution or charter of rights or whatever other set of fundamentals a country is founded on.

I don't want to repeat others' points, but if we were to go with the kind of system of direct democracy you are advocating, the mob would go unchecked, things like constitutions just go out the window. They're pointless in that context. Think of the major civil liberties breakthroughs of the last 100 or so years and consider if they'd even have happened under such a system.

As for how the constitution can be changed, that's another matter. I know it can be amended in the States, but the argument for making it easier or more difficult to change is a fraught one.

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting that you say this. I'm suspecting it is because the Constitution is unclear in respect to the prospect of legalising gay marriage, pretty much along the same reasoning that our own Constitution is unclear on it. In the case of our judges they ruled that because Eamon DeValera wasn't thinking that way in 1937 that it was probably his intention to define marriage between a man and a woman.

I'll have to read more about what sections of the US Constitution he used to justify his position.

There's nothing in the US constitution, currently, that bars gay marriage, and clauses re. marriage didn't enter into this as a result.

Of course, you can and should read for yourself, but in short this ruling was made under the equal protection and due process clauses.

LookingFor

Stinicker wrote: »

The gays in California have just scored probably the biggest own goal in their campaign thus far. The judge who just overturned this is hemself gay and this clearly violates the democratic will of the Californian people.

And the democratic will of the people violated the constitution, which is fundamental.

So, the constitution prevents you from voting to strip others of their civil rights? Boo-frickin'-hoo, world's smallest violin over here please :rolleyes:

philologos

LookingFor wrote: »

You can keep saying that 'with certain stuff the people should be supreme' but that continues to ignore the presence of a constitution or charter of rights or whatever other set of fundamentals a country is founded on.

I've not argued once for ignoring the Constitution. I would like to see this go to the Supreme Court and have them rule on it.

LookingFor wrote: »

I don't want to repeat others' points, but if we were to go with the kind of system of direct democracy you are advocating, the mob would go unchecked, things like constitutions just go out the window. They're pointless in that context. Think of the major civil liberties breakthroughs of the last 100 or so years and consider if they'd even have happened under such a system.

Having restrictions on how much the Constitution can be altered, or having a set requirement of supporters like in Switzerland should do the trick. Ultimately there will have to be some form of judiciary to interpret the Constitution, but adding or removing articles should be down to the people. It is the people who define the character of the country.

I would argue that any change in terms of civil liberties should be reasonably thought through, that such changes would not impede the rights or liberties that people currently have, and that it would have popular support. It's probably a conservative view of how liberties should be added.

LookingFor wrote: »

There's nothing in the US constitution, currently, that bars gay marriage, and clauses re. marriage didn't enter into this as a result.

There is nothing that explicitly mentions that it is a right either?

LookingFor wrote: »

Of course, you can and should read for yourself, but in short this ruling was made under the equal protection and due process clauses.

I aim to.

Matthewthebig

Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard

Stinicker

LookingFor wrote: »

And the democratic will of the people violated the constitution, which is fundamental.

So, the constitution prevents you from voting to strip others of their civil rights? Boo-frickin'-hoo, world's smallest violin over here please :rolleyes:

The people will always trump any constitution and civil rights also. Gay Marriage does not come into civil rights, we don't hear pedophiles arguing for under age sex to be legalised, just because they think it should be doesn't mean it should, similarly with gay marriage.

The people in California fighting for gay marriage have really damaged their cause with this and what they have done is akin to getting a referee from their side to ref the political match. The people of California have voted that they do not want gay marriage or the gay agenda and all these gay extremists have done is help alienate gay people when the status quo was working nicely.

This will lead to increased incidences of homophobia and will damage the gay community in the long term. Just because something is legal somewhere else does not mean that this is ok in every jurisdiction. In Germany parts of the Autobahn has no speed limit, this does not mean Ireland should have or that it would work here. Different strokes for different folks.

Mike 1972

Stinicker wrote: »

the gay agenda

:rolleyes:

philologos

Matthewthebig wrote: »

Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard

Despite the fact that I have pointed out, that if the people of California had voted to legalise gay marriage, I would regard it as their democratic decision to have done so?

Or indeed, that I support civil partnership?

Very funny logic there, I must say :pac:

Matthewthebig

Jakkass wrote: »

Despite the fact that I have pointed out, that if the people of California had voted to legalise gay marriage, I would regard it as their democratic decision to have done so?

Or indeed, that I support civil partnership?

Very funny logic there, I must say :pac:

Shocking that the fundie cúnt is the one who comes against it. I bet you wouldn't object to creationism being brought into school teaching this way.

dr.bollocko

Matthewthebig wrote: »

Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard

Banned.

gizmo

Stinicker wrote: »

The people will always trump any constitution and civil rights also.

:eek: