Prop 8 Overturned
norm
Posts: 31,146
This afternoon U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in the case brought before him by lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, which argued that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative denying marriage rights to same-sex couples in California was unconstitutional. In a decision just handed down to lawyers for both sides, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses." The court, therefore, "orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement." We're staying tuned for more updates and details on the 136-page decision, but these two sentences from the conclusion are critical:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.
That's what history sounds like. Of course, before the ruling was released, lawyers for the opposing side filed a motion to stay his ruling pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/ju ... _vict.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That was great to watch again. Thanks Norm. Maybe I should email the link to my next door neighbor who had posted the BIGGEST Pro 8 banner ever before the election. Funny - someone stole it.
By Dr. Drew Pinsky
I am certainly by no means a legal scholar. Nor do I have any special understanding of American History. I am an American citizen with a deep appreciation of the brilliantly balanced system our founding fathers created.
There was a reason they set up our system as a republic and not a direct democracy. The Jacksonian Revolution started us in a direction whereby direct appeal to the people and direct democracy gained a distinct priority in our value system.
But never did the founding generations expect that we might see the advent of a system where a simple appeal to a majority could result in any whim the majority might decide to assert.
A main concern of the founding fathers was to create a system that was sufficiently balanced and thoughtful so as to buffer against one group exerting its will upon another. This to them, was nothing other than mob rule. While we retain a distinct preference for the gloss of a direct democracy the fact is we are not and thankfully so.
Throughout history democracies have inevitably fractured and failed. Even the Greeks felt that a democracy was impossible in populations greater than 100,000 members. Not only are we so much larger but more heterogeneous making this even more treacherous.
Alexis De Toqueville, a Frenchman who came to America in the opening decades of the nineteenth century to study Democracy in America, in his objective assessment remained very concerned that our system had a potential to allow for something he called the Tyranny of the Majority. That is to say he was concerned that merely by being a majority one group could exert its will upon another, even restrict its civil liberties and rights.
Unfortunately, the referendum system in the State of California has become the mechanism for actualizing precisely this tyranny. The California Supreme Court determined that the argument against same sex marriage was untenable.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court’s 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state’s interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that “equal respect and dignity” of marriage is a “basic civil right” that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution (source: Wikipedia).
In other words it was the concerted opinion of the judicial authority that the logic used against interracial marriage was the same as that, which was being used against same sex marriages. In spite of this very clear understanding of the law and the logic of prejudice, the response rendered by the referendum system with the passage of Proposition 8 was: “too bad”.
Now my point here is not to get into whether or not gay marriage is good, right or should even be included in the definition of what we consider marriage. My concern is that the referendum system in California can rescind the civil rights of a minority group, independent of the operation of other governmental authority.
Abraham Lincoln famously argued in his debates with Stephen Douglas that there are certain things that the majority simply cannot decide. We simply could not allow for a majority to decide that it is acceptable to enslave another population of humans no matter how substantial that majority.
He famously quipped that “squatter sovereignty’s” right to determine whether or not a state should be free or slave was based on an argument that was thinner that the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that was starved to death! And so are the arguments flying about today to justify and legitimate Prop 8 and the Referendum system from which it was unleashed.
I ask my fellow citizens to give this careful thought. The protection against the tyranny of the majority has been an important consideration throughout the history of our government and we have quietly allowed, out of our own ignorance and apathy, a very important threshold to be crossed. A majority has restricted the basic civil rights of a minority. Beware, it may be your rights next to be trampled merely because there are enough people who think it should be so.
http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010 ... il-rights/
this is great news!
although i am sure it will be reversed by a vote of 5-4 by the supreme court though... :(
unfortunately i have a bad feeling that judge Vaghn Walker has just made himself a target of far right extremists....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Maybe I will start a movement to ban all government sponsored marriage for everyone. It seems like that is the simplest solution to satisfy both sides.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This article is written very carefully so as to sound logical. The problem is that we can't have a system that upholds the demands of every single group or fraction of society if the majority votes them down. It would be a complete breakdown of law and order.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
if your answer is yes,
what race of judges should rule on race issues? black or white?
only he knows... but the judge has ruled against gay groups plenty of times, to the point where he was labeled as anti-gay during his confirmation hearings.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I'm all for this. Marriage should be between the people involved, and whoever they want to marry them. If people want to be legally bound, let them write up contracts. Pre-nups are becoming more popular. I'm not in favor of them, but whatever. It wouldn't be long before a cookie-cutter marriage agreement is downloadable on the internet for free for anyone who wants it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
are you fucking kidding me? So no gay judge can be impartial but a straight judge voting to ban gay marriage would be ok though i'm sure. Why should a heteosexual judge have more of a right to hear this case instead of a homosexual one? so by your logic so far....gay judge= gay marriage ok straight judge=no same sex marriage. What sexual orientation would be ok with you in a case of homosexual rights vs. heterosexual homophobia?
Yeah... just about every other issue out there, I can see both sides... i might totally disagree with the opposing side, but I understand the basis of their argument.
But opposing the right to gay marriage makes absolutely no sense to me...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
The question is... who gets to defines morality?
Also, what is that morality based upon? Religion?
And the basic assumption is that gay people have no morals.
Hail, Hail!!!
Not really. I'm saying it could be a dangerous or slippery slope to let a single entity or a few select individuals decide when majority rule is allowed and when it is not.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think there are more shades of grey to it than that.
Disclaimer: read my original post to see that I don't really think either side of this issue makes a lot of sense in their positions. Applicable to what I say next is that I am not going to spend any effort or oppose gay people being married.
Here's where it's a bit grey and I know I'll get blasted for this. Currently every adult in California does have the legal ability to marry someone...as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. So one could make the argument that there is equality.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
But I don't even believe that marriage is a right. I believe it's a privilege.
My biggest belief, however, is that the government should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. It shouldn't be government's business.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Because we live in a representative Republic... not a true Democracy. We learned that in our U.S. Government in high school.
And because the Law of the land covers everybody, not just the majority.
And... well, just think about it... what if there was the initiative process in place in the 1940s and 1950s... the majority would have ruled in favor of Segregation. Is that a good thing in your eyes? That just because the majority wants something... they should get it?
Hail, Hail!!!
Why is it the government's business? Taxes.
Hail, Hail!!!
And why exactly is it a privilege?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis