Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 79

Thread: Federal Judge strikes down gay marriage ban in California

  1. #61
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    15,036

    Default

    ^^ But once the SCOTUS deems the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, how can States continue to ban it (without facing endless lawsuits)?

    ETA: my question was for Witchcurlgirl

  2. #62
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    The states will no longer be able to if DOMA is repealed. That's why the law itself has to go. Right now DOMA is Federal law.

    There have been several appeals in the past few years challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, but so far SCOTUS has declined to review any of the cases.

    Either of these might make it before the court, but even if they do a decision could go either way with the present court.

    ETA: Simply DOMA is unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gives regulation of marriage to the Federal branch. Marriages are licensed by the states, divorce laws decided by the state, etc. DOMA was specifically put in place to take the right of gay marriage away- to allow states not have to recognize other states laws on marriage. That's why the court has never heard a case, because on the face of it the law is unconstitutional and wouldn't be able to stand. It's a political fight, much more so than Roe v. Wade was when that case was heard. Roe v. Wade became a hot issue later.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; August 5th, 2010 at 07:23 PM.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #63
    Elite Member louiswinthorpe111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    14,167

    Default

    I dunno, since we approved gay marriage here in Iowa, everything's gone to shit, morals, crime, dogs and cats living together in harmony....

    Really, no one knows any difference. Just the marriage license section in the newspaper is longer.

    Whowoodathunk? Iowa is the PROGRESSIVE state.
    RELIGION: Treat it like it's your genitalia. Don't show it off in public, and don't shove it down your children's throats.

  4. #64
    Elite Member C_is_for_Cookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiswinthorpe111 View Post
    Whowoodathunk? Iowa is the PROGRESSIVE state.
    We're awesome!!

  5. #65
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    15,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    The states will no longer be able to if DOMA is repealed. That's why the law itself has to go. Right now DOMA is Federal law.

    There have been several appeals in the past few years challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, but so far SCOTUS has declined to review any of the cases.

    Either of these might make it before the court, but even if they do a decision could go either way with the present court.

    ETA: Simply DOMA is unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gives regulation of marriage to the Federal branch. Marriages are licensed by the states, divorce laws decided by the state, etc. DOMA was specifically put in place to take the right of gay marriage away- to allow states not have to recognize other states laws on marriage. That's why the court has never heard a case, because on the face of it the law is unconstitutional and wouldn't be able to stand. It's a political fight, much more so than Roe v. Wade was when that case was heard. Roe v. Wade became a hot issue later.
    Thanks for the info.

    But if DOMA is unconstitutional on the grounds that the feds can't regulate marriage -- then I guess we'll be needing a constitutional amendment to stop this insanity. Or would a ruling from SCOTUS that denial of these rights are unconstitutional suffice?

  6. #66
    Elite Member sprynkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the salon
    Posts
    23,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Froogy View Post
    "Whats next, sex with animals?" Direct quote from a FB "friend"
    Idiots! My favorite is the old standby, next, people will be marrying goats.
    I don't know why it's goats, but it is always goats! Makes me laugh and cry at the same time. I can't believe these people are for real.

  7. #67
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    For those with dumb Facebook friends, I have a couple of suggestions:

    1) The short but sweet: Reply to their comments with, "Fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -The U.S. Supreme Court (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943)

    2) The longer version: Point out that in the trial, the Prop 8 proponents specifically rejected the plaintiffs' definition of marriage as being a commitment freely entered into by two adults based on mutual love, affection and common goals and interests. Instead the Prop 8 side argued that marriage should be defined as a "state sanctioned sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children biologically related to both spouses."

    SO if any of your friends blabbing about "the people's voice" are stepparents, or without children at all, etc. disagree with the ruling and think that the Prop 8 side should have won, point out that the actual basis of the ProtectMarriage group's case was not just against same sex marriage and parenting, but also encompasses the following: married couples who choose not to have children, married couples who can't have children for health reasons, divorced people who remarry and make their kids stepchildren (or gain stepkids themselves), widowed people who remarry with kids, adoptive parents, foster parents and married couples who used IVF or other fertility treatments. In ProtectMarriage's ideal world, the state would enact a law using ProtectMarriage's definition of marriage and thus not only invalidate and prevent same sex marriage but all the above cases of heterosexual marriages as well.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  8. #68
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    of course if a few of the most conservative SCOTUS judges happen to get killed or die or something in the next few weeks/months, I will not be shedding any damn tears.
    I think there's a good chance that the conservatives might affirm. Judge Walker himself (who wrote this ruling) is a conservation libertarian who was appointed by President H.W. Bush.

    And of course, Ted Olson, the plaintiffs' chief counsel, is a conservative who was Bush II's Solicitor General. Olson is also a veteran in front of of SCOTUS who's won something like 90% of the 50 or so cases he's argued, which is why the plaintiffs are deliberately aiming for the Supreme Court. Olson is brilliant at oral arguments.

    Here's irony for you: Judge Walker was originally nominated to the federal bench by Reagan in the 80's. His nomination was torpedoed by a cabal of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi, who claimed that Walker was an "enemy of gays" because Walker successfully represented the U.S. Olympic Committee against the "Gay Olympics" in a copyright infringement use over the term Olympics.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  9. #69
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post

    The 1Oth ammendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, and the states cannot alienate some of these. State's rights are real. That's part of the basis for the MA case. So it's not just southern states screaming about state's rights. MA is using it to argue against DOMA
    States don't have rights; they have powers. It's pretty important to impress on people around here that states aren't guaranteed rights by the Constitution the way people are.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  10. #70
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    I so love Judge Walker. You could tell from reading through the court proceedings that this guy is everything a Federal Judge should be
    ITA. I read that he was very through in laying out the finding of facts of the case. According to the link below, Judge Walker is related to the Bushes. (The W in George W Bush is Walker).

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=69382

    And of course, Ted Olson, the plaintiffs' chief counsel, is a conservative who was Bush II's Solicitor General. Olson is also a veteran in front of of SCOTUS who's won something like 90% of the 50 or so cases he's argued, which is why the plaintiffs are deliberately aiming for the Supreme Court. Olson is brilliant at oral arguments.
    Olson was also argued Bush v Gore.
    Tea baggers want to fight the Man because the Man doesn't look like them.

  11. #71
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    Ted Olson argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore; David Boies, a liberal lawyer who argued for Gore, was co-counsel in this case.

    IIRC, Olson was recruited to the case and he was the one who then brought in Boies, his courtroom adversary and good friend, also based on Boies' expertise with the Supreme Court and witness examination. Boies just demolished the Prop 8's sole witness on cross - people were joking that the witness was practically bleeding onto the floor.

    ITA. I read that he was very through in laying out the finding of facts of the case.
    He knew he was writing for the Supreme Court. While he subsequent courts (9th District and SCOTUS) can disagree with his conclusions of law they must rely on solely on his Findings of Fact, which is why that's the most important everyone was looking at.

    Here's a good analysis from Prop 8 Trial Tracker:

    On the Will of the People: “An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determination of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determination must find at least some support in evidence … Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough (page 24.)
    Not a finding of fact per se, but a credibility judgment that directly confronts the whole “will of the people” demagoguery we get from the other side.
    Fact #27: Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized basedon presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.
    Fact #32: California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependents. As a result of Prop 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman.

    I put these two together, because they very nicely form the basis of Walker’s argument – restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is an archaic concept that relies on a presumption that men and women are different, and somehow both indispensable to form a marriage. Even if Supreme Court judges don’t believe gay people can marry, they still need a rational basis (at least) for excluding same-sex couples — and “just because” won’t be an adequate answer.
    Fact #44: Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
    Fact #48: Same-sex couples are identical to opposite sex couples in the characteristics relevant of the ability to form successful marital unions.

    Again, these two facts gel nicely together. In his legal analysis, Walker says that sexual orientation is a “suspect class,” but we don’t even need to do strict scrutiny because Prop 8 even fails the rational basis test. One of the essential elements of a suspect class (which I explained in detail before) is if gays are a distinct minority, whose trait is immutable and an essential element of their being. Fact #44 essentially encodes that in, a finding of fact that higher courts will have to deal with. Fact #48 is also important because, once we determine gays are a distinct minority, there is no compelling reason to treat them differently.
    Fact #58: Prop 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
    Fact #67: Prop 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Prop 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.
    Fact #79: The Prop 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements.

    I put these three facts together, because combined they put on a compelling case that Prop 8 was motivated by an irrational fear (animus) that is unconstitutional according to Romer v. Evans (1996.) If all the “rationales” — stated or unstated — in favor of passing Prop 8 were mere subterfuges for bigotry, any court would have to find it violates the 14th Amendment. Walker helps call a spade a spade, and I look forward to seeing how Justice Scalia would try to find some legally consistent way of addressing this.
    Again, the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court are free to reject Judge Walker’s legal reasonings. But they cannot question his findings of fact, which were all amply proved at trial. As Ronald Reagan said, “facts are stubborn things” – and they’re here to stay.
    Last edited by NoNoRehab; August 6th, 2010 at 02:09 AM.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  12. #72
    Elite Member Froogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiswinthorpe111 View Post
    I dunno, since we approved gay marriage here in Iowa, everything's gone to shit, morals, crime, dogs and cats living together in harmony....

    Really, no one knows any difference. Just the marriage license section in the newspaper is longer.

    Whowoodathunk? Iowa is the PROGRESSIVE state.
    Hey! I'm in Iowa too. It was a mess, people were protesting and saying how immoral we would become. Like they were going to start having sex on street corners.

    Seriously, nothing has changed.

  13. #73
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    60,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mella View Post
    And where should I go? I can't escape it, I can't change my line of thinking
    It's okay. You aren't going to be forced into a homosexual relationship. You're still free to be with anyone you want to.
    "But I am very poorly today & very stupid & I hate everybody & everything." -- Charles Darwin

    "Trump is, in my opinion, the first woman president of the United States." -- Roseanne Barr

  14. #74
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    oh, so now you're the victim? you can't 'escape' the gays and their demands for equal rights so what is a poor little homophobe like you supposed to do? who's looking out for you?
    uh.... seriously, do you not realise that you are the one with the problem here? and yes, yes you can change your line of thinking. starting out by getting some pychological help to deal with your deep-rooted issues with homosexuality (i remember the story about your aunt and all that).


    i think this is great. i hope it makes it up to the supreme court (and that they do the right thing, of course). further proof that in the US, gay marriage will only ever be legal if there's a scotus ruling. that was the only way to get desegregation, the only way to get abortion, and the only way gays will get equal rights. you cannot have people voting on minority and/or civil rights issues. blacks would still be riding on the back of the bus in southern states if they'd made it a voting issue. it doesn't make it undemocratic because democracy does not mean majority rule on every single issue. as with every other political body, there has to be a system of checks and balances in place and one of those is a court system that is there to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority.
    I agree-these SCOTUS rulings are needed and start the real process going. Look at Roe vs Wade.
    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    There is no need to even get SCOTUS involved. SCOTUS doesn't make law, they interpret the constitution and existing law.

    Just like the landmark 1964 Civil Rights act, what is needed here is legislation. Which must be enacted by the executive branch (like LBJ did on civil rights) working with the legislative branch. Then SCOTUS can enforce such laws.

    SCOTUS ruled on cases like Brown vs. Board of Ed, but until there was a federal law ensuring equal treatment, there was no real civil rights progress.

    Same thing here. The laws must be changed, and that falls to Congress.


    .....and Mella- seek help. I think you may be a repressed gay person, they way it bothers you so much suggests some self loathing.
    But any law that Congress makes can be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and a ruling on this will undermine that. It is not like DOMA is a constitutional ammendment. (although that is what I fear, and is a way around a SCOTUS ruling. I am just jaded enough to think it could happen. A Constitutional Ammendment: the 28th Amendment, declaring gays as second class citizens, otherwise known as the Hate Amendment).

    If that would happen(or something like it), I am on my way to Canada...I will be a nurse by then with some experience...do they need them there? God maybe I would actually have to marry a Canadian gay man just to get there(the irony!)

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    ^ 10th and 14th both.

    States rights vs. federalism (10th)- the MA case, and equal protection (14th)- the CA case.

    Sorry, I'm all over the place between the two cases, and trying to pretend I'm working......

    DOMA also violates the 5th amendment (in conjunction with the14th), maybe we can get a hat trick of cases in front of the court.
    Yes it was presented in the ruling I believe as violating both the 10th and 14th, and found unconstitutional regarding both of those amendments.
    Quote Originally Posted by louiswinthorpe111 View Post
    I dunno, since we approved gay marriage here in Iowa, everything's gone to shit, morals, crime, dogs and cats living together in harmony....

    ...
    Hahaha..are gays marrying dogs, goats, corpses, trees, etc. yet? Are three way marriages happening? Are frat boys getting drunk and marrying eachother? Des Moines, the new SODOM! Has Phelps shown up to condemn you all to hell yet?
    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post
    Thanks for the info.

    But if DOMA is unconstitutional on the grounds that the feds can't regulate marriage -- then I guess we'll be needing a constitutional amendment to stop this insanity. Or would a ruling from SCOTUS that denial of these rights are unconstitutional suffice?
    I would hope so.???

  15. #75
    Elite Member t13nif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    i'm in yer manifesto, correcting your spelling mistakes
    Posts
    3,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post

    If that would happen(or something like it), I am on my way to Canada...I will be a nurse by then with some experience...do they need them there? God maybe I would actually have to marry a Canadian gay man just to get there(the irony!)

    You keep threatening to come here Soj...get yo ass up here!
    "Hope everyone' shavin a good one!" - Karistiona

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 1st, 2009, 01:12 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 7th, 2008, 01:48 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 17th, 2007, 12:25 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2006, 02:28 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 21st, 2006, 04:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •