http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html
I'm not worried so much specifically over the issue of gay marriage, I'm perfectly fine with the legal observance of civil unions for every couple who wants to be recognized as such.
How does everyone feel about one judge overturning the will of a majority of voters? In a representative republic the will of the majority is demonstrated with their vote. There are basically nearly 8 mm Californians who have just learned their vote is irrelevant, and one judge has said he is right and they are wrong. FWIW, Judge Walker is reputedly gay.
As well, this comes on the heels of Missouri's vote agains the Obamacare mandate. According to Robert Gibbs, the vote was insignificant.
"Gibbs dismisses Missouri vote against federal health insurance mandate
By Sam Youngman - 08/04/10 03:39 PM ET
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs flatly dismissed Missouri's vote Tuesday rejecting a key part of the healthcare law.
Gibbs said Missouri's vote approving a ballot initiative to exempt residents from the new law requiring individuals to buy health insurance was "of no legal significance."
Asked what it means that voters in Missouri would vote against the federal mandate, Gibbs said: "Nothing."'
It sure seems like a lot of legislation and court rulings are starting to go against the demonstrated view of the majority.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/112685-gibbs-dismisses-missouri-vote-against-health-insurance-mandate
Gays getting married? Haven't they suffered enough?
I'm siding on the right for them to get married so I'm sure my opinion is skewed.
I had a problem with Prop 8 as soon as the Catholic Church and other religious concerns started spending crazy money to persuade their parishioners in order to screw with secular law.
counter-majoritarism at it's best. That is the problem, everyone assumes this is a republic, which has been tried and fail countless times. A standard must stand against the whims of the mob.
I think the judge ruled that rights cannot be curtailed by a vote.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 02:34:12 PM
How does everyone feel about one judge overturning the will of a majority of voters? In a representative republic the will of the majority is demonstrated with their vote. There are basically nearly 8 mm Californians who have just learned their vote is irrelevant, and one judge has said he is right and they are wrong. FWIW, Judge Walker is reputedly gay.
Will of the people does not trump the Constitution. If that were the case, much of the South would still have Jim Crow laws.
My understanding is the judge believed the affirmative vote for the ban was a result of homophobia. Mark Davis has an interesting analysis of the constitutionality issue
But seen through the liberal lens, preserving unique status for man-woman marriage can only be driven by homophobia. Venom drips from Walker's paragraph attacking the 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8, whom he believes were driven by "nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."
As perversely untrue as that is, even if every last one of the Prop 8 voters was a raging gay-basher, it would not change the fact that the Constitution requires this issue to be settled at the state level by the legislative process.
When the Constitution is silent on an issue, the 10th amendment leaves it to the states or to the people. The Prop 8 vote did this in California. If pro-gay marriage forces had won, their wishes would deserve to prevail. It didn't, and now a judge who can't handle that vote seeks to subvert the public will with the left's tried and true tactic: the wholesale invention of rights that do not exist.
Walker is welcome to hold heterosexual and homosexual unions in identical personal regard, as many Americans do, and to hold up same-sex couples as worthy partners, parents and citizens, as most Americans do. But this does not entitle him to hijack the right of the people of California to decide which marriages to legally recognize.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-markdavis_0806edi.State.Edition1.4b566fb.html
Yes, Davis is a conservative, but note he said that if the vote had gone the other way, the wishes of those voters deserved to prevail.
And here's a take on it from the other side:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=108796
"Similarly, Judge Walker found that, based upon the evidence presented in court by the pro-Proposition 8 side--which only called two witnesses to the stand, compared to the 18 witnesses who appeared on the pro-marriage equality side--the ballot initiative was motivated by "animus" directed at gays, rather than a genuine compelling interest. Walker wrote that the marriage ban imposed by Proposition 8 "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of a fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
Moreover, Walker, wrote, proponents of Proposition 8 relied on "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices" about gays. "Proposition 8 played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker noted in his 136-page opinion."
IMO, this is the point where the judge over-reaches in assuming homophobia was the driving force behind those who voted for passage of the amendment.
We throw around the term "judicial activism" quite a bit on here. Could this be considered a case of that, especially coming from a more left-leaning circuit and from a judge who is reputedly gay. Did it really get a fair hearing then?
QuoteDid it really get a fair hearing then?
I think the proposition was unfairly shoved through by very powerful conservative churches with their money and the ability to get all there snake dancers worked up about something that shouldn't concern them.
That's not really all that fair either.
I was watching the trial reports fairly closely, and the judge, by all accounts, was extremely fair to the plaintiffs and defendants and that no one could really complain about how the court was run.
Also, I read the ruling in its entirety last night, and it had more factual and legal citations than any ruling I'd ever seen. Indeed, I think Judge Walker bent over backwards to ensure that his ruling was based on facts and law. And I thought the legal reasoning behind the ruling was very sound.
The defense was charged with presenting facts of its own. That it failed to do so was not the fault of the judge. In fact, the judge asked the defense when it was ever going to present evidence to support its case. It did not. And the one defense witness simply wasn't credible because he did not present facts or science to back his assertions, just moralistic opinions.
If you're a judge -- gay or not -- and one side presents mounds of evidence for its scientific and constitutional case and the other doesn't, how are you going to rule?
I'd actually read the ruling before throwing the "activist" tag around if I were you.
(As an aside, I find it amusing that wingers are throwing around the "liberal" tag on the judge when he was a Bush appointee, was championed by Ed Meese, and had his judicial appointment held up twice by the Democratic Congress because he was deemed as too conservative.)
Quote from: Townsend on August 05, 2010, 04:25:01 PM
I think the proposition was unfairly shoved through by very powerful conservative churches with their money and the ability to get all there snake dancers worked up about something that shouldn't concern them.
That's not really all that fair either.
And that's a good point as well. I've never been a believer in legislating morality. My understanding was that the big issue to the fundies was preventing the state from calling a same sex union a marriage. It did not affect "domestic partnerships" I think they were afraid of the state re-defining their lock on the word "marriage".
Marriage was a spiritual and religious concept long before it became a civil concept sanctioned by government and generally was always only recognized as a heterosexual union. I still don't believe government should be in the marriage business, but there is sound reasoning as to why it is when it comes to splitting one up and sifting through the ashes.
Oh, FWIW if Wiki can be trusted, it shows the anti Prop 8 crowd raised about $3.4 mm more than the pro crowd (sorry short on time, I'll look for something more scholarly, I was trying to get a quick summary of the issue).
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 04:08:10 PM
My understanding is the judge believed the affirmative vote for the ban was a result of homophobia. Mark Davis has an interesting analysis of the constitutionality issue
But seen through the liberal lens, preserving unique status for man-woman marriage can only be driven by homophobia. Venom drips from Walker's paragraph attacking the 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8, whom he believes were driven by "nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."
The ruling deals with this issue. Indeed, it was shown during the trial that the Prop 8 people
did use fear and assertions in their campaign that were not based in sound science but, in fact, lies or ignorance. So the homophobia conclusion didn't come out of thin air.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 04:40:23 PM
Marriage was a spiritual and religious concept long before it became a civil concept sanctioned by government and generally was always only recognized as a heterosexual union. I still don't believe government should be in the marriage business, but there is sound reasoning as to why it is when it comes to splitting one up and sifting through the ashes.
Marriage actually was a secular thing long before it became a spiritual or religious concept. It became more of a religious thing only in the past 500 years or so.
That's not a short time, but the history of marriage goes way before that.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 05, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
I was watching the trial reports fairly closely, and the judge, by all accounts, was extremely fair to the plaintiffs and defendants and that no one could really complain about how the court was run.
Also, I read the ruling in its entirety last night, and it had more factual and legal citations than any ruling I'd ever seen. Indeed, I think Judge Walker bent over backwards to ensure that his ruling was based on facts and law. And I thought the legal reasoning behind the ruling was very sound.
The defense was charged with presenting facts of its own. That it failed to do so was not the fault of the judge. In fact, the judge asked the defense when it was ever going to present evidence to support its case. It did not. And the one defense witness simply wasn't credible because he did not present facts or science to back his assertions, just moralistic opinions.
If you're a judge -- gay or not -- and one side presents mounds of evidence for its scientific and constitutional case and the other doesn't, how are you going to rule?
I'd actually read the ruling before throwing the "activist" tag around if I were you.
(As an aside, I find it amusing that wingers are throwing around the "liberal" tag on the judge when he was a Bush appointee, was championed by Ed Meese, and had his judicial appointment held up twice by the Democratic Congress because he was deemed as too conservative.)
But it's rulings like this on wedge issues which are getting the tag "judicial activism" from the right and left. Most people see the decisions for what is in the headline and first two paragraphs of the filtered account of it, not reading a 138 page opinion in depth. It's perception, not reality that sells with the voter in many cases.
Sure Judge Walker was a Bush appointee. Gov. Schwarzenegger, who sees this as a victory, is a Republican, so what? There's room to say that Walker was biased if he is gay. Had a hetero judge ruled to keep it intact, don't you think there would be room for people to call that judge biased and activism from the right? He may well have approached it totally neutral, but this gives leverage to those who will call this activism.
Oh and Huffpo isn't too happy with the CIC's response:
"So, how did President Barack Obama, the de facto leader of the Democrats, choose to commemorate this victory? Let's go to the statement furnished by the White House to Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate:
"The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."
Well, that's just sort of OK, as statements go. But as long as no anonymous sources at the White House gives, say, Politico some other comment that completely undermines this lukewarm support --
Nevertheless, Obama has also publicly opposed same-sex marriage, and a White House aide said the president's position has not changed.
"He supports civil unions, doesn't personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states," said the official, who asked not to be named.
Well, that's just splendid. A key voting bloc for Democrats celebrates an important civil rights victory, and the White House heralds the occasion by coupling its enthusiasm for the victory with a reminder that it opposes the actual civil right that's at stake."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/prop-8-ruling-exposes-dem_n_671900.html
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 02:34:12 PM
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html
How does everyone feel about one judge overturning the will of a majority of voters? In a representative republic the will of the majority is demonstrated with their vote. There are basically nearly 8 mm Californians who have just learned their vote is irrelevant, and one judge has said he is right and they are wrong. FWIW, Judge Walker is reputedly gay.
I have been in this legal business for a number of years now and I can tell you that conceptually it is very difficult to comprehend how one person can throw away the will of the people. There is some solace in knowing their is an appellate process available which does make the system a little more palatable.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 05:04:03 PM
But it's rulings like this on wedge issues which are getting the tag "judicial activism" from the right and left. Most people see the decisions for what is in the headline and first two paragraphs of the filtered account of it, not reading a 138 page opinion in depth. It's perception, not reality that sells with the voter in many cases.
Sure Judge Walker was a Bush appointee. Gov. Schwarzenegger, who sees this as a victory, is a Republican, so what? There's room to say that Walker was biased if he is gay. Had a hetero judge ruled to keep it intact, don't you think there would be room for people to call that judge biased and activism from the right? He may well have approached it totally neutral, but this gives leverage to those who will call this activism.
Like I care a whit what Huffington Post says. And I don't care about the fickle strands of public perception, because I'm a lot more interested in reality.
And "judicial activist" is lazy and empty-headed sloganeering, like something I would expect from jamesrage. So if people use the term, I give it the attention it deserves.
Once again, the judge stated that his ruling came from the evidence and on a constitutional basis; there's nothing I read in the ruling that indicates otherwise.
Again,
1) The defense didn't bother to present any evidence while the plaintiffs voluminously did, which indisputably tipped the balance in favor of the plaintiffs;
2) Vaughan Walker, by all accounts, is a conservative judge.
Just because you're a conservative doesn't mean you rule against gay rights (the recent gay-marriage opinions in Iowa and Massachusetts came from judges who are Republican appointees). Nor does it mean there's bias. Judges are supposed to rule on evidence and law, and there's nothing to indicate they haven't in any of these cases.
Quote from: guido911 on August 05, 2010, 05:24:50 PM
I have been in this legal business for a number of years now and I can tell you that conceptually it is very difficult to comprehend how one person can throw away the will of the people.
So you tacitly admit that you can comprehend how the will of the people can be overruled, correct?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 05, 2010, 06:56:43 PM
So you tacitly admit that you can comprehend how the will of the people can be overruled, correct?
What kind of a dumb point are you trying to make? The "will of the people" gets overruled quite frequently. It was Arizona a couple weeks back, and now this this week.
My whole simple point was to point out to Conan that as a practical matter it is not one judge trumping the will of millions. There is a check and balance in the federal court system, the appellate process, which very very frequently reverses the judgments of district courts. Then there is the Supreme Court, which as most know, reverses 9th Circuit decisions often.
The "will of the people" people must hold a lot of animosity towards Lincoln.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 05, 2010, 07:12:02 PM
The "will of the people" people must hold a lot of animosity towards Lincoln.
If you mean the "south", then you sure are right. Some little war or something happened when the people (rightly or wrongly) didn't like how they were being treated by government.
I guess it's a toss up for guido. However I think Ron Paul had the right idea.
Sometimes the courts must rule against the will of the people because it is their job to do so. The lawsuit brought against the state of California by the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Prop 8, which denies their marriage rights- the same marriage rights granted under the law in California to their opposite-sex counterparts.
The judge clearly and decisively ruled that Prop 8 indeed violates the due process clause and the equal protection rights in the US Constitution. He also stated that by merely disagreeing with or disliking a person's sexuality, for whatever reason, is not a "proper basis on which to legislate".
Don't forget that the California Supreme Court first ruled that denying same sex marriage was unlawful, hence the reason Prop 8 was initiated by those opposing the high court ruling, mostly fueled by religious groups and their interests.
The ensuing campaign was filled with millions of dollars worth of misleading TV ads paid for by the supporters of Prop 8 , who lied to the people of Califonia, claiming that if prop 8 failed to pass, California teachers would be forced to teach a 'homosexual agenda' in public schools, ministers could get arrested for refusing to perform gay marriages, churches would lose their tax exempt status, and a whole slew of other lies. And, as we have seen so many times by those pushing a moral, right wing conservative agenda, the fear mongering worked like a charm, without a shred of truth to any of those claims made in the 'scare tactic' commercials.
But even putting the questionable campaign aside, the fact of the matter is clear: If the country only ever ruled by the 'will of the people', we might not have passed the civil rights act of 1964, since at that time the vast majority of people in the US disagreed with interracial marriage, and would likely have voted this act down had it been put to a referendum. This is why a 'popular vote' should never be used to determine fundamental civil rights issues. This is why we have the constitution.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 05, 2010, 06:52:54 PM
Like I care a whit what Huffington Post says. And I don't care about the fickle strands of public perception, because I'm a lot more interested in reality.
I think you are mis-understanding my point: it's simply how the public can percieve this as the tired saw of judicial activism and one individual nullifying the will of millions.
You may well be right about Judge Walker, there's some serious irony here. Gay rights groups tried hard to block his nomination and succeeded twice, yet he came through in a big way for them:
"The second issue was that as a lawyer in private practice he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics.
Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/reagan-appointed-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/
Fickle strands of public perception is what elects people and gets votes fer and agin measures like Prop 8. Those strands are made up of bits and pieces of reality, not the whole enchilada.
You have got to realize that people like us who frequently debate and analyze political issues down to the nano-detail don't make up the core of voters, it's the ones who read a headline and two paragraphs, catches a talking head program on Faux or MSNBC or listens to MSM and form opinion on a lot of filtered summaries.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 07:43:10 PM
Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination."
Ironic indeed.
Hmmm....Reagan tried to appoint him first, but was blocked by liberals, twice, then finally appointed to the bench by Bush I.
And now you have the usual suspects trying to demonize Judge Walker as a liberal activist judge. Hilarious.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 07:43:10 PM
I think you are mis-understanding my point: it's simply how the public can percieve this as the tired saw of judicial activism and one individual nullifying the will of millions.
...
You have got to realize that people like us who frequently debate and analyze political issues down to the nano-detail don't make up the core of voters, it's the ones who read a headline and two paragraphs, catches a talking head program on Faux or MSNBC or listens to MSM and form opinion on a lot of filtered summaries.
In this case, I don't think it's going to have much of an effect on voters one way or another. Gay rights has become more favored by the general public in recent years, and support for it will continue to grow as old people with old prejudices continue to die out.
And I think this issue is going to be very small potatoes compared to many other meaty ones (economy, war, jobs, education, taxes, deficits, etc.). Once gay marriage is allowed nationwide (and it's coming eventually), the country as a whole will generally embrace it and then wonder what all the fuss was about.
Quote from: guido911 on August 05, 2010, 07:08:20 PM
What kind of a dumb point are you trying to make?
I was asking a question, grumpy. At least you answered.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 05, 2010, 08:01:31 PM
I was asking a question, grumpy. At least you answered.
All right, my bad. I thought you were trying to be a smart@ss or something by asking a question that I thought had an obvious answer.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 05, 2010, 07:59:50 PM
In this case, I don't think it's going to have much of an effect on voters one way or another. Gay rights has become more favored by the general public in recent years, and support for it will continue to grow as old people with old prejudices continue to die out.
And I think this issue is going to be very small potatoes compared to many other meaty ones (economy, war, jobs, education, taxes, deficits, etc.). Once gay marriage is allowed nationwide (and it's coming eventually), the country as a whole will generally embrace it and then wonder what all the fuss was about.
Unless President Obama quits fence-sitting, it could result in a backlash by gay activists who are starting to demand he should support gay marriage. I wonder how Hillarity feels about it.
"President Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, even though he agrees with a district judge that California's ban against it is unconstitutional, a White House adviser said today.
Supporters of Proposition 8 -- a measure approved by California voters in 2008 that bans same-sex marriage -- plan to appeal yesterday's ruling, and it may reach the Supreme Court.
"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," White House adviser David Axelrod said today on MSNBC.
He noted, however, that the president has always opposed Proposition 8.
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time -- he felt it was divisive, he felt that it was mean spirited," Axelrod said. "We reiterated that position yesteday."
The court battle over Proposition 8 could thrust the debate over same-sex marriage back onto the national stage and compel the president to take a less ambivalent position.
"His position on Prop. 8 has always been clear. What has not been clear is how he squares his position for equality with his refusal to embrace actual equality in marriage," Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Politico. "That is unclear, increasingly unclear, and there's no good reason to explain it."
Americablog, the liberal blog with a special emphasis on gay rights, has started a petition asking Mr. Obama to fully support same-sex marriage.
"In the wake of today's historic court decision on Proposition 8, it's time for President Obama to support full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples," the petition says. "You simply do not support equality for gay and lesbian couples if you don't support letting them marry."'
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012842-503544.html
I think Axelrod competently and thoroughly explained Obama's position on this issue:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/painful-axelrod-tries-to-explain-obamas-non-position-on-prop-8/
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 05:04:03 PM
There's room to say that Walker was biased if he is gay. Had a hetero judge ruled to keep it intact, don't you think there would be room for people to call that judge biased and activism from the right? He may well have approached it totally neutral, but this gives leverage to those who will call this activism.
But that is such a weak argument.
First of all, Walker has never confirmed or denied his sexuality publicly. He is not 'Openly Gay' as all the media outlets have been reporting, like that being 'open' is somehow more threatening, or automatically makes him political about it. He hasn't said anything about it because it is (or at least should be) a non-issue.
Also, if the argument is that a gay judge shouldn't be allowed to preside over this case due to personal bias, then why should a straight judge be allowed? Don't straight people have just as much at stake from the outcome, since supposedly the sanctity of their straight marriages are being threatened? The moral fiber of the country is presumed to come completely undone if the gays are allowed to marry, right?
I guess women judges shouldn't hear abortion cases, black judges have no business hearing discrimination cases, and religious judges are out when it comes to first amendment cases?
The argument is truly absurd.
But it's not a weak argument to fundies who feel energized about an appeal.
Unless there was an avowed asexual hearing the case, it's impossible to say theres 100% impartiality. Can you honestly say, weak or not, had this been ruled the other way by a church-going hetero judge that opponents of Prop 8 wouldn't be screaming bias?
I don't have a horse in this race. I'm simply putting out the hypotheticals. If GLBT want the same benefits of marriage as heteros have I'm good with that so long as they aren't seeking preferential treatment.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 09:23:44 PM
But it's not a weak argument to fundies who feel energized about an appeal.
The fundies ought to direct more of their energies ensuring that the legal team has fundamental things such as evidence, instead of pointing at miniature unicorns.
I'm still absolutely flummoxed by the defense team offering no evidence to bolster its case. That's Trial 101. That leads me to believe one of two things:
1) The legal team is incompetent; or
2) The legal team could find no credible evidence to support its case.
If it's No. 2, I'd have to think the Prop 8 folks have a tough hill to climb at the appellate level.
And that leads me to this: If the judge truly was openly gay (as has been alleged), why didn't the defense team file a motion to get another judge? Was is because the team consisted of a bunch of incompetents? Or was it simply that such a motion would ultimately be a silly argument?
After all, you had the Prop 8 people making the argument that gay marriages would harm heterosexual marriages. By that thought, wouldn't a heterosexual judge have an inherent bias against the gay marriages?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2010, 09:23:44 PM
But it's not a weak argument to fundies who feel energized about an appeal.
Unless there was an avowed asexual hearing the case, it's impossible to say theres 100% impartiality. Can you honestly say, weak or not, had this been ruled the other way by a church-going hetero judge that opponents of Prop 8 wouldn't be screaming bias?
There will always be a losing side, but to use Judge Walker's sexuality against him is nothing more than sour grapes.
Judge Walker's ruling is the correct one, because it is based on facts. If the supporters of Prop 8 want to place blame, they should look to the defense team. They presented an extremely weak case with some absurd arguments, and only one witness, who was easily discredited. Apparently they had a hard time finding anyone credible that would support their nonsense. There is no one to blame for the outcome but themselves.
It's funny. I heard this bubble up again and again during coverage of the ruling, and that's the "why should one judge overturn majority rule" meme. It's weird that so many people should all want to attack the (time-honored, Constitutional) process rather than the substance of the ruling. And do it in such exact language across the country, no less!
I came away wondering if someone was broadcasting that question to certain antennae around the nation just in time to be asked on every news channel, call in radio show, and on line chatroom available.
I also came away wondering 1) who specifically generates these messages, and 2) what the messages are meant to convey. And I couldn't help but see, by attacking the process rather than the substance, it's another brick in the argument that our government -- and some of our founding processes -- are fundamentally flawed and need to be revamped/overturned. It dovetails nicely with the "do-nothing Congress" meme, and the "out-of-control executive" meme, though also seems to mesh with the opposite theorem, which has the Democratic Congress as a Marxist buzzsaw and the President as an incompetent professor who's in over his head. In either case, "why would the judge overturn the will of the majority?" is meant specifically to question how we make decisions, not whether the decision was correct on the merits.
It's not "is this a good decision," but it's "our method of decision-making is broken."
Ted Olson says it better than anyone. Clear, concise, to the point, and best of all- no screaming and yelling.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on August 10, 2010, 04:52:06 PM
Ted Olson says it better than anyone. Clear, concise, to the point, and best of all- no screaming and yelling.
I have always liked this guy. As you may know, his wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Quote from: guido911 on August 10, 2010, 05:09:41 PM
I have always liked this guy. As you may know, his wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Wow, I did not know that. Interesting info.
Homosexuals marriages on hold pending the conclusion of the appeal.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/national/a022838D10.DTL
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 06:17:21 PM
Homosexuals marriages on hold pending the conclusion of the appeal.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/national/a022838D10.DTL
I heard on the radio this morning that the stay was extended to keep the case at the appellate level. If the stay was allowed to expire then Prop 8 supporters could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court right away. I guess I am confused, this is obviously headed to the Supreme Court anyway why keep it at the appellate level? Or is this just the Appeals Court wanting their say before it heads up? This seems like a pointless and time/cost consuming step for both sides.
Quote from: swake on August 17, 2010, 08:28:05 AM
I heard on the radio this morning that the stay was extended to keep the case at the appellate level. If the stay was allowed to expire then Prop 8 supporters could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court right away.
I don't think that's the case. From what I can tell, the stay is based upon the idea that there might be confusion as to the validity of any marriages performed after the stay expired if the ruling was eventually overturned.
The stay is primarily to stop couples from getting married asap and then having to deal with those down the road. If the stay was lifted the prop 8 proponants might request a stay directly from the Supreme Court, but i don't think the court would take it up directly. better to stay a ruling that effects millions of people's lives than to have to void marriages later... which i don't think would happen.
The opinion was well written and carefully spelled out.
1) Marriage is both a civil contract recognized by the State and a religious union
2) The State has no interest in directing the religious union and has not and will not mandate any reilgious group perform any union
3) Marriage is a fundamental right established by case law (primarily from the inter racial marriage cases)
4) To deny a group a fundamental right the State must (at least) have a rational basis to treat one group different than another, and that reason must address a compelling governmental interest. [it must pass a stricter test, but if it fails this lesser test the more strict test is moot .
5) The reasons given to treat homosexual unions different than same sex unions are:
a) Religion - which is not a proper argue for the government to consider and was not directly posed to the court
b) Tradition - a litany of case law lays out that tradition alone is not reason enough to treat a group different
c) Procreation - no state has ever mandated procreation as a condition for marriage, no license is revoked due to lack of procreation or an inability to procreate, birth control is legal in marriages, and marriage is not required for procreation. Ergo, it is not a primarily reason for marriage or for the State to hold an interest in marriage.
d) Stable Families - the evidence presented in the Court indicated that homosexual couples have the same stability rate as heterosexual couples. Presumably the divorce rate would be about the same as any other couple. Which, in and of itself, serves only to prove that marriage among heterosexual couples isnt all that sacred...
e) Think of the Children - evidence presented indicates that biological relation has nothing to do with the ability to raise well adjusted children. The most pressing issue to reach that criteria is the presence of a stable family. which would be increased by homosexual marriages. No evidence was presented that indicated homosexual couples would be lesser parents than a heterosexual couple.
f) Fear - the stereotype of homosexuals as criminals and child molesters, or otherwise something to be afraid of was relied upon in the campaign ads of the prop 8 group. The fear of having ones church sued because they refuse to perform gay marriages was used also. No evidence was offered and no evidence exists that indicated that homosexuals pose any greater threat to children or crime in general than anyone else. The judge specifically says that no cause of action exists against religious institutions for not performing any marriage because of gay marriage.
g) seperate but equal - civil unions are good enough, gay people don't need to get married. But seperate is never equal... otherwise you wouldn't have 2 seperate laws making them mutual exclusive forms of union and this fight wouldn't exist.
h) The will of the people - they put it to a vote, and the people voted to ban gay marriage. Simply put: you can't put someone elses rights to a vote.
6) The Court set the criteria relied upon with great detail, and failed the measure even under the weakest standard.
7) The Court carefully weighed the evidence and assigned it value in great detail.
8) The Court carefully cited the relevant portions of law.
9) The Court determined that the State had no rational basis to treat homosexual couples different than a heterosexual couple.
In my discussions with people and after reading this discussion, I have not heard a legitamate reason. Most reasons given can be stuffed into a catagory specifically addressed in this case. I'd be interested in hearing one that doesn't argue religion, conflict with existing law, and is a legitimate governmental interest.
It appears by all accounts that homosexual marriage actually has the same benefits for society as heterosexual marriage. It results in stable relationships, a family in which to raise children, and a populace that is generally easier to govern (married people move less, get arrested less, keep jobs longer, have more disposable income, etc.). Unless the judge incorrectly cited law, this ruling stands. I'd be hard pressed to see a circuit going another way and this getting to the Supreme Court until the circuit puts a stay in effect and the Court is asked to address it (I'd still guess they refuse it the first time). Once gay marriage is in place for a few years no one will care anymore... why should they?
/disclaimer: I'm not gay, but have many gay friends. I read the full case and agree with the opinion, but personally I was in favor of gay marriage being legalized anyway.
I think this is the best line out of the opinion
"Presumably the divorce rate would be about the same as any other couple. Which, in and of itself, serves only to prove that marriage among heterosexual couples isnt all that sacred..."
I bet the TW posters are having fits.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Carrie-Underwood-supports-same-sex-marriage/cMdagaVvgEmqjhRSdoNl7w.cspx?rss=2448&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Carrie-Underwood-supports-same-sex-marriage/cMdagaVvgEmqjhRSdoNl7w.cspx?rss=2448&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteOklahoma native and country superstar Carrie Underwood supports same sex marriage.
In an interview with 'The Independent' newspaper, Underwood says she was raised Baptist and attends a gay friendly church and supports marriage equality.
Underwood says she doesn't believe she has the right to judge anyone, "I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."
Underwood is a Checotah native and won the fourth season of American Idol in 2005. Billboard magazine named her 'County music's Reigning Queen' in 2012.