The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:02 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Quote:
August 4, 2010 | 1:48 pm
A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Interesting that this article doesn't mention that the judge is one of 2 openly gay judges at the Federal level.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:12 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Ladas wrote:
Interesting that this article doesn't mention that the judge is one of 2 openly gay judges at the Federal level.


Is that important?

Personally I don't give a **** what gender he prefers, what color he is, or any of that ****. ;)

Good ruling is good.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:13 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
It's more interesting that the Judge in question refused to recuse himself. This decision will be vacated and sent to a different District Court for reconsideration.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:19 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
It's disappointing that the judge's refusal to recuse himself will cause this foolishness to continue.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:20 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Vindicarre wrote:
It's disappointing that the judge's refusal to recuse himself will cause this foolishness to continue.


Nah, it'll go to the Circus court of appeals, and then up to the USSC. I doubt it'll get vacated on the basis of the judge's sexual orientation.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Vindicarre:

Eh, I'm firmly in the camp that the 10th Amendment protects a State's ability to make such determinations via referendum. I'm also firmly in the camp that California and Georgia and Texas and Oregon and Kansas and Colorado and where ever else are **** when it comes to not honoring New Hampshire's same-sex unions.

Müs:

You don't pay enough attention to the court. The SCotUS keeps deflecting this issue as fast as it gets to Federal Courts. It'll get sent back down first.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
I don't agree with the first, Khross. I don't believe the 10th extends to disallowing certain segments of the population to avail themselves of forming contracts. As to the second: agreed; the third: also agreed.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:28 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Khross wrote:

Müs:

You don't pay enough attention to the court. The SCotUS keeps deflecting this issue as fast as it gets to Federal Courts. It'll get sent back down first.


Perhaps, but the next step is the 9th Circuit court of appeals, not the USSC. If I had to wager, I'd say this ruling is affirmed by the appeals court, and then kicked up to the USSC where they deny certiorari. ;)

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech? Here's the conclusion -

Quote:
CONCLUSION
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. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Müs wrote:
Is that important?

Depends on whether or not the people supporting the Proposal can link he affiliation, and the fact that his ruling directly benefits himself, as cause to have the judgment reviewed.

Plus, I was commenting on the fact that the author of the article took time and space to point out that this judge was an appointee of Bush.

Personally, I'm indifferent to the outcome, though give more weight to the consideration of legally recognized contacts between individuals.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:52 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Monte wrote:
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?
No one has said anything of the sort.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Khross wrote:
Monte wrote:
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?
No one has said anything of the sort.



No, but people seem to be implying that a person who happens to be gay cannot make a fair decision on a case like this. Should black Supreme Court justices recuse themselves in decisions relating to Civil Rights? And if so, why shouldn't white people? Why would a straight person be a more fair judge of this case? They have an interest in it, as well.

Attacking the judge is pretty limp in this case. He's a reagan appointee with a long record of excellent judicial service. His decision, on it's merits, is excellently argued. Hell, the witnesses for the pro-Prop 8 people wound up agreeing with the Plaintiff's case on cross examination.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:18 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Monte wrote:
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?


I get where you are going with that, and I think I agree with you on this. Why should a gay judge need to not be part of the panel on this? Hell, you could even make a case for not allowing a straight judge to be able to make an unbiased call on it since they obviously have a vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
I'm really tired of this being played as a game of technicalities on both sides. I want to see a definitive verdict handed down from the USSC. Just rule the damnable ban unconstitutional and be done with it. I don't like the idea of freedom being based on a precarious technicality, and I don't believe in putting equality in the hands of popular opinion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:26 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
darksiege wrote:
Monte wrote:
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?

Why should a gay judge need to not be part of the panel on this?


Heh, if it goes to the USSC, Kagan will need to recuse herself in that event then ;)

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:27 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
darksiege wrote:
Monte wrote:
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?


I get where you are going with that, and I think I agree with you on this. Why should a gay judge need to not be part of the panel on this? Hell, you could even make a case for not allowing a straight judge to be able to make an unbiased call on it since they obviously have a vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned.


Why does a straight person have any vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:29 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Diamondeye wrote:
darksiege wrote:
Monte wrote:
So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?


I get where you are going with that, and I think I agree with you on this. Why should a gay judge need to not be part of the panel on this? Hell, you could even make a case for not allowing a straight judge to be able to make an unbiased call on it since they obviously have a vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned.


Why does a straight person have any vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned?


Duh, all straight people hate teh fagzorz. If you don't hate the fagzorz, you must love the fagzorz, and that makes you a homo.

Homo.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
FarSky wrote:
I'm really tired of this being played as a game of technicalities on both sides. I want to see a definitive verdict handed down from the USSC. Just rule the damnable ban unconstitutional and be done with it. I don't like the idea of freedom being based on a precarious technicality, and I don't believe in putting equality in the hands of popular opinion.


You should definitely read the decision, or at least the highlights. The Judge tossed out Prop 8 in the strongest possible legal terms, using several legal tests as the measure. It's really not a contest of technicalities, in this case. My guess is that, should this go to the USSC, it will be upheld.


Aaaand here it is

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Thanks for the link Monte.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
No problem. I put it up as soon as I found it. I just finished reading it. The Prop 8 supporters didn't have a leg to stand on. It is so nice to see that fundamental rights trump popular moral opinion in the State of California.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:18 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Diamondeye wrote:
Why does a straight person have any vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned?


That is best answered with the question.. Why do they have such a desire to prevent gay people from marrying?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Monte wrote:
It is so nice to see that fundamental rights trump popular moral opinion in the State of California.

I'm sorry, what fundamental rights? There are none, and the government of California decided what "rights" existed. You can't argue both sides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:09 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Ladas wrote:
Monte wrote:
It is so nice to see that fundamental rights trump popular moral opinion in the State of California.

I'm sorry, what fundamental rights? There are none, and the government of California decided what "rights" existed. You can't argue both sides.


Beat me to it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:27 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
darksiege wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Why does a straight person have any vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned?


That is best answered with the question.. Why do they have such a desire to prevent gay people from marrying?


I haven't noticed that straight people have any such desire. I've noticed that it's most common among Fundamentalists and *cough* Blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 303 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group