Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Salt Lake Tribune: Judge Overturns Ban on Same-sex Marriage

You can always tell when it is a WCF Slow News Day, when you guys deign to discuss.......SERIOUSLY......... who on the SE staff will win a PULITZER for Journalism

By BAT_girl

I can always tell when it is a WCF Slow News Day, when you guys feign to discuss....... SERIOUSLY......... who on the SE staff will win a PULITZER for Journalism.

SO... back to breaking news, just in:
Judge overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Here's more:
Equality California PACs
Victory!

After compelling testimony from California couples who are denied the freedom to marry, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The case will now move to the Court of Appeals.

We owe Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown a great deal of gratitude for their unprecedented decision not to defend this discriminatory measure, leaving only Andrew Pugno’s anti-LGBT extremist group to defend the case.

Celebrate this incredible victory by "defending it."
Be sure to toss in your own two bits -Ed.

Update 8/5/10 8:02 a.m.: Read Judge Walker's full written decision here (pdf):
Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

47 comments:

googlegirl said...

Utahns react to Prop 8 ruling

Danny said...

... so let me get this straight.

The people of a state vote for the law to be they way they want it to be.

Then, a single man, says no, the law will be the way he wants it to be. And 99% of the morons who live in this country think the Constitution grants that one man that power.

But not to worry, there are a dozen or so other men and women (all judges) who will ultimately decide the issue. But not the voters. No, not them. No, the Constitution requires these things to be decided by a very, very few, but not the public.

This is why a revolutionary war was fought to free us from rule by a monarchical elite?

I am in the company of morons.

Morons.

A sea of morons. Morons everywhere.

Read the constitution sometime. Tell me where it empowers a federal judge to overrule the people of a state, or where it grants the authority to the judiciary to rule on constitutionality at all.

Here's a hint. It doesn't.

Heaven help this country. Morons. 99% pure.

Jonnie H. said...

Here is what Anne Rice, a devout Christian, had to say:

"Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out," she wrote. "I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious and deservedly infamous group. For 10 years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.... In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

Danny said...

Yeah, I say everybody is a moron, and you log in with a quote from one.

Somehow, I think you could find anybody to say about anything, about anytime. And that's news. That's what we talk about in this country - in the slowly-going-out-of-business media.

Sparrows, chirping their voices out, in a tree, dropping bombs below.

Only .0001% has any clue.

Maybe, sometime, somebody decent will run for office and burn all of this stupidity.

Keisha said...

I'm with Johnnie H. on this, Danny. Remember, we're all God's children.

curious 1 said...

So if the majority passed a law banning church weddings it would be OK with you Danny.

Equal under the law is Americian Democracy at work. By the way if the CA vote was today the polls say the law would be overturned.

This judge was appointed by
Bush 1. Utah is run by a patriarchal elite and that seems to be ok with most there. The morons keep voting the unethical back into office.

Segregation must of been ok with you Danny since it was overturned by a court also. Unless I'm mistaken the Federal Laws trump state laws, you need to read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, "all created equal".

Danny said...

It's not about what you or I want. It's about the right way to do things in a free country.

Equal under the law???? Millions of California residents, or Arizona residents, are trumped by one judge? You call that equal under the law? Can you count?

Unless I'm mistaken, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Still haven't read it, have ya?

Still can't tell me where it says judges can rule on constitutionality, can ya?

And yes, if the public voted to ban church weddings, then it should be illegal.

And segregation was eventually overturned by legislatures.

As far as the polls, if the vote were held and the proposition were repealed, then fine with me. But the vote must be held. You quoting a poll of 1500 adults means nothing.

Next up, I suppose, is polygamy. Bung holing your queer mate is okay, then why not six wives, all in the same house?

Splay said...

Me thinks this backwards danny bigot protests WAY to much. Of course it is OK for someone to marry six people. If I remember correctly, this is the same poster who doesn't want adults to be able to enjoy an exotic dancer with their burger and fries, on the grounds that dancers are all whores, and that the frisked up men will go out and rape strangers. Next thing you know, he will be saying that hetero-sex between adults should be outlawed unless they have a marriage license from the state.
I would like to examine the computers of people who are most against this ruling: porn porn porn. Its obvious to everyone except a scarred puppy: if you don't like a certain personal behavior that you find offensive, don't do it. Note: The jobs that have the greatest numbers of practicing homosexuals: Active Marines, Professional Football players, and Deep Sea Fishers.

Get a grip.

BAT_girl said...

WOW........Danny. Where 'ya been, buddy? Out smoking weed, your your back 40, in some canyon in OV?

I did not ask Rudi to put my post up. But ya gotta admit, it was was, otherwise, a SLOW NEWS DAY on WCF.

Thanks GG for the link to SLC TRIB article above. Nice one. 36 comments so far on that one.

Remember: after Obama 2008, all articles on PROP 8 in the SLC TRIB went up to over 356 comments, each for months. Flatlander and I met regularly in those comment threads, during those months.

Thanks for the AP story out of SAN FRAN:
Judge overturns ban on same-sex marriage

That article is up to 497 comments.

For DANNY, I have a few more articles, all posted in the last 8 hrs, in the USA:
http://news.google.com/news/story?q=cnn+prop+8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dqr7zS0vhy_fZ4MXJqL6UOBUl_GrM&hl=en&ei=wEJaTJGyEofksQPr9vjTDw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQqgIwAA

DANNY aside, let's face it folks. We now get to watch a really interesting evolution of the CIVIL RIGHTS LAW in the US of A, as PROP 8 and this case ascend to the SUPREME court of the land.

Now watch Obama load that court, starting with Kagan. That's a slam dunk: NEXT!

BAT_girl said...

Just in:
The Huffington Post is on the KAGAN issue already:
"........In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, and John Cornyn voted against Kagan's confirmation. Explaining their votes, they all cited the fact that Kagan, as Dean of Harvard Law School, sought a compromise position on military recruiting that respected the school's longstanding nondiscrimination policy protecting LGBT students. Several of these committee members objected to Kagan's expressly stated view that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which requires the military to discriminate against openly lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members, is bad policy. Senators Grassley and Kyl lamented the fact that Kagan would not announce clear opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples.

In other words, to gain their votes, these Senators insist that a nominee explicitly support discrimination against LGBT people....."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-davidson/the-anti-gay-litmus-test_b_668757.html

Time for OBAMA to even the SCORE in the SUPREME COURT. Kagan will just be the first.

Stephen M. Cook said...

Minority civil rights, when put to a majority vote, are always denied. Time and time again, the majority has voted to restrict the rights of the outsiders.
This is why in America, civil liberties are not subject to vote: they are solidly guaranteed under the constitution.

This is not just a victory for gays and lesbians, it is a victory for all Americans.

We want our country forward.

BAT_girl said...

Stephen M. Cook: Thank you. Very well spoken.

Here is another article from the LA TIMES posted tonight:
Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,3014822,full.story

"......Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years...."

Pundits, nationwide, on both sides today commented, again and again, that when this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be the crowning decision on Civil Rights in American Legal history.

IMHO...... the battle for Civil Rights in the USA will go on. And the Supreme Court decision on this CA PROP 8 case will only be a stop along the way, just as Roe v Wade was 35 yrs ago.

Curmudgeon said...

SMCook:

Exactly right. The whole point of the bill of rights was to place essential freedoms beyond the reach of the majority to alter or violate. If, as Danny seems to be suggesting, the majority of the voters of a state are never to to have their decisions subject to judicial review on constitutional grounds, then there's not much point to having a bill of rights at all.

BAT_girl said...

NICE Curm. We can count on you.

Here is another, clearly stated article posted EST PM by CNN/ Washington, on the process that this Prop 8 Case will go through, in the next few years:

Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/proposition-8-long-road-to-the-supreme-court/?iref=allsearch

Monotreme said...

Your daily dose of Twitter:

@fivethirtyeight

Just backing up: isn't it nuts that (eventually) one of the most famous rulings in SCOTUS history will be named after Arnold Schwarzenneger?

Dan S. said...

Your daily dose of song lyrics:

@Tom Lehrer

Hollywood's often tried to mix / Show business with politics, / From Helen Gahagan / To Ronald Reagan ...

Whiskey Pete said...

I have no problem with Gays and their relationships, but remember this, the same legal arguments for Gay marriage will someday be used to justify and legalize polygamy. They are the exact same legal civil rights issues.

Now maybe some of your are for polygamy, but it could mean anyone could marry as many times as they want and at any age with no restrictions. So when you consider those aspects, you can just guess what it will do to society and the family structure in this State and around the Country.

It will be hard to ignore the civil rights efforts for polygamy in the future.

curious 1 said...

Polygamy is different especially when it comes to child brides. Gay marriage is between 2 adults legally recognized by a civil document not children or siblings.

Eventually gay relationships will be recognized and some will marry some will not just like your neighbors. After being a couple for years why shouldn't my partner be entitled to my estate and other benefits after I die without the added legalities that marriage conveys with a marrage license.

Just like the miltary Don't Ask Don't Tell when it is overturned it will have a few bumps but eventually be smooth sailing. Gays have been serving in the military for generations and will be accepted. Those ultra religious who do not accept working side by side can leave, it is a simple solution. It is called following orders and the chain of command. Other countries laugh at us for being backward since gays have been serving openly for years in Canada, Israel and other NATO countries.

Sarsaparilla Sam said...

Yeah, polygamy raises some of the same legal issues. I think polygamy should be legal, though only between consenting adults, of course. But fitting it into the framework of civil marriage won't be easy, and might not be possible. Marriage, under today's law, is a contract between two equals in which both parties have the same rights (e.g., in a later divorce). Polygamy is an inherently unequal relationship, in which it isn't clear how most marriage-related laws would even apply.

Sarsaparilla Sam said...

Just to give one example: It'll be trivial to let same-sex couples file joint federal tax returns, since the tax code makes no reference to a married couple's genitalia. But how would you adapt the tax code to a man who has two "wives"? There's no applicable filing status or column in the table where you can look up the tax.

curious 1 said...

Also look at Polygamy with a older father having 19-30 kids with different younger wives. She won't identify the father allowing her to collect welfare, then when he dies all of his kids if identified can collect Social Security until they are 18 or older. More unearned payments on a system set up for legal marriage and working families.

Legal questions of age, close relatives, sisters marrying uncles or step brothers, genetic make up will still make polygamy a non-starter in the US.

I prefer looking at condoned religious polygamy after death in their world rather than here and now in ours.

Sarsaparilla Sam said...

curious1: The problems you mention are, in my view, an argument FOR legalizing polygamy and, in the process, creating an enforceable set of rules to dictate how polygamous families are to be treated with respect to child support, Social Security, and so on.

Incest and statutory rape should, of course, be vigorously prosecuted under any circumstances.

Ernie the Attorney said...

Thanks for the link, Rudi. Judge Walker has issued a particularly scholarly and well supported opinion, obviously designed to stand up on appeal.

Curmudgeon said...

Rudi:

Thanks from me as well for easy link to the full decision.

flame away said...

Question: why do heterosexuals and homosexuals insist on having STATE recognition of their relationships?

If two gay guys want to marry, they should just do so privately.

If a woman and a man want to marry, they should do so privately.

If a man wants to marry 23 wives (all of legal age), what the hell do I care?

Quit insisting, however, that anyone, anywhere recognize your particular relationship in the same way you do by endowing it with STATE recognition. I do not need the government to tell me that I am married, no matter who the other "partner" is in the marriage.

flame away said...

It's also probably worth pointing out that the U.S. Constitution grants no authority over marrige to the federal government.

As such, a FEDERAL judge making a ruling about a state issue would be improper.

(flame away!)

Curmudgeon said...

FA:

No, it wouldn't, provided the state law violated a provision of the US Constitution [which is "the supreme law of the land"]. That is precisely what the judge ruled, that California's Prop 8 addition to its constitution violated the "equal protection of the laws" guarantee of the 14th Amendment, which is binding on the states. [The 14th Amendment was passed during Reconstruction to force southern states to provide "equal protection of the laws" --- including their state laws --- to their own citizens and residents, to prevent them from having different laws for different citizens, or the same laws applied differently to different groups of citizens.

Sarsparilla Sam said...

FA: I would have no objection to removing all government sanctions of marriage. But this would take an enormous amount of work, due to the enormous number of laws at all levels that currently recognize marriage. Would you simply eliminate joint tax returns and make everyone file separately? Would you remove benefits for spouses of federal employees, including those in the armed services? I think the government has to recognize some sort of domestic partnership, but a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to figure out exactly how these partnerships get recognized, and what benefits ensue. I doubt that this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Curmudgeon said...

Flame:

You ask: "Question: why do heterosexuals and homosexuals insist on having STATE recognition of their relationships?"

Because in nearly every state in the union, "marriage" [called that by the state] carries with it legal protections and privileges that are not routinely available to those who are in marriages the state does not recognize. [Death bed visitation, inheritance rights, property law, child custody, adoption law, etc.]

If you want to argue that the state should get out of the business of certifying marriages entirely --- homosexual and heterosexual marriage both --- then I'm with you. I think marriage ought to be a religious rite, not a civil one, left entirely in the hands of those who wish to be married and those who are willing to marry them, with the state playing no role. I'm fine with that. States could simply register civil unions, which would carry with that registration all the legal consequences involved, for gay or heterosexual couples. And leave marriage to the churches or other groups, such marriages having no legal consequences whatever.

Fine with me.

Lots of luck getting that through Congress or the Utah legislature.

Whiskey Pete said...

To those that think rules will apply to Polygamy are dreaming. If it is ruled unconstitutional to discriminate against polygamy, there are no rules about children, adults or how many times you can marry or anything. There are no such rules regarding gays! A teenager can file a discrimination suit just like and adult if they want to marry younger, and if the court agrees like they did on gays, Katy bar the door.

You are living in a dream world if you think that anyone is going to live within some polygamy rules. You are thinking that the Mormon rules apply, not so. Polygamists that receive court blessing will take it to the limit just like gays and minorities. They have the same rights and will go to whatever limits they want.

Sit down and think what that will mean the human experience and our way of life, in the courts, child support, divorce court, property settlements etc., etc. (If they even get married, they may choose not to)

Wide open marriage to as many people that you want to and at any age. Who is going to regulate the age issue? The government doesn't do that now, they look the other way on the known polygamists now and think of 300 million+ people choosing polygamy. Everything that has made this nation great will disappear over the years.

Sarsaparilla Sam said...

Whisky Pete:

You're not making sense. Maybe you should switch to sarsaparilla for a while.

E.K. Hornbeck said...

The trouble with Sarsaparilla is Whiskey Pete is making excellent and logical common sense for you to admit it. You know that if it is okay for Gays to marry, polygamy is not far behind. (identical civil rights issues). And there will be no rules because the existing rules will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. They must do that so they don't single out polygamists from every other group. Equal justice under the law.

Poole said...

You have to be able to enter into a legal contract in order to marry, i.e. 18 plus, with certain exception deemed to be in the interests of the state.

One man -one woman - and their offspring - living alone in a detached home, the supposed Christian american ideal, is a rare exception historically, and could be seen as expedient to a easily mobile work force necessitated by the rise of the industrial revolution and factory work.

For most of recorded history, the far superior practice of polygyny (one husband with two or more wives at the same time) has been the overwhelming norm. Even today, seventy-five percent of the world's societies prefer this type of marriage.

The point is that humans fall in love, copulate, and satisfy economic demands, with wide variation.

As for modern freedom, now that my smoking-hot girlfriend could have been a man last year, or a perhaps in a few decades my mate could be a genderless sentient machine, having such matters codified endlessly with state sanctions, this is archaic leavings of a ignorant and infantile planet obsessed with fear/nonsense.
Your grandkids will think you were all fossils, with low-brows and the morals of an ant.

Just ask jean luc picard.

Danny said...

Lots of talk here.

And still, STILL, no one has read the constitution.

The constitution does not grant the federal courts the power to rule on constitutionality.

On the contrary, it allows the court only such appellate jurisdiction an the congress shall give.

People nowadays talk. Nobody reads anymore.

Same as birds do.

Nico Warhol said...

Sure thing, wingnut right.

I think Marbury v. Madison is considered settled law, as is Dred Scott.
Not to mention Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.

Its one thing to read the constitution with Glenn and Rush and Sean as your teachers.
It is quite another to attend University and read it for 7 years, daily.
Our suggestion to you would be to purchase, read, and do the work in the fine textbook: American Constitutional Law authored by Lawrence Tribe. It is pretty much the standard.
With you passion for the legal, you might even be able to understand it, if you open your mind, and turn off the right wing-nut radio.

Danny said...

Nico,

Thanks for quoting your sources. I note you don't quote what the Constitution itself, says.

But yeah, you got a handful of some guys you name, who say some things you like, so you quote them. Predictable. Not persuasive.

As far as settled law, note that the congress, from time to time, HAS stipulated that the courts will not rule on the constitutionality of a given law they have just passed. So they know what the Constitution really says. They, and the courts, unlike you, know that the court is fully subordinate to the congress under the Constitution, and unlike what they teach in grade school and on TV.

And to the guy who says the Bill of Rights was to protect the minority from the majority, no. It was meant to protect the people from the government, and to limit the government.

You could learn a lot by turning off the TV and reading the actual Constitution sometime.

And for those who don't read, not that Nico mentioned Dred Scott. That was where the Supreme Court ruled that no person of African ancestry could ever be a citizen. Nico says that is settled law.

Real credible. Nice example of the court protecting rights. Made my point.

BTW, who is Glen, Rush and Sean? More TV or what?

Glick said...

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Don't hang yourself by your own petard, Danny, please. You're looking wackier by the minute!

Stubbornness seldom wins intellectual arguments.

Chill, Danny. It's going to be okay.

zoolander said...

38 comments. Damn. It doesn't take a constitutional expert to know that people who dont like fags and lezbos were raised up wrong. ask people under the age of thirty they pretty much could care less who you marry, expecially if it is 2 hot chicks right next door. The reason it was an almost 50-50 split in cali was because cali rules when it comes to stuff that is cool. it is cool to be pro-civil rights, cool to be gay, cool to be pro-freedom. you wanna be some hater christian, go right ahead. as for god, she does not care who you marry, as long as you are not a dick to the ones you love. hell, maybe jesus would even have wanted you to be chill with people you hate. sometimes there are bad laws voted by stupid people. eventually, everyone is alright.

Lou said...

Yeah, Nico!

Where ya been?

Danny said...

You guys never address the argument.

Marbury v Madison was a power grab by the court. The court decided it should have more power. So this is decisive? What else is new?

Nobody, in all these posts, has shown where the Constitution grants the courts Constitutional review.

Suppose the court wanted to set tax rates, and decide spending. I guess you'd go along.

But the congress has overruled the court many times since Marbury.

But yeah, quote the Harvard lawyer and a judge here and there. Don't quote the people, who have outlawed gay marriage in most states, and thirty-one states have put same-sex marriage on the ballot, but none have passed. It's also against federal law.

You quote the odd lawyer here and there, because that's all you got.

Danny said...

40 posts on gay marriage, while the world burns around us.

Where have all the workers gone?

Sarsaparilla Sam said...

Danny: Without judicial review, there would no point in even having a constitution.

BAT_girl said...

Time to buy a 2 yr supply of micro-wave pop corn & same of Mountain Dew OR same quantity of Coffee & Pizza.

IMHO & for my money, the next great Supreme Court decision will be PROP 8: Perry v Schwarzenegger. I have not been so politically entertained, since the days of Roe v Wade.

googlegirl said...

Repeal 14th Amendment?

Piggy Orwell said...

I agree with Danny. After all the original constitution did not include any amendements! Even the ones that require due process and being treated equally under the law. I will allow we should all be condidered eqyal but hetrosexual citizens should be more equal!

Sad Day, sad day said...

I guess that one man should not have the power to overturn 51,000,000 voters to decide who would be president either, but they did and we had to live with G.W. bush and all the crap that came with that. soquityourbellyaching. Dannny, tell it to the judges.

Ivory Soap said...

I agree with several previous comments, the laws and civil rights issues are identical for gays and polygamy advocates. If you think otherwise you have your head in the sand.

People who say they don't see the connection are not being honest. It is called equal protection under the law. Ask the ACLU. They know it too.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved