Decision on Prop 8 pending

[Huayna Capac357]

Just for reference, I thought you were talking about the thing in the Supreme Court, like nationwide. That's why I thought it might be considered constitutional. But since it's on the state level, it's definitely unconstitutional.

Again though, I'm not very knowledgeable about law though, so I could be wrong.

 

[Quackers]

A judge from San Francisco.

This is expected.

 

[useless]

What's your point?

 

[Quackers]

San Francisco is a bastion of "gay" rights?

 

[useless]

What is your point Quackers?

 

[Frank Drebin]

A judge from San Francisco.

This is expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker

Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois,

 

[Godwynn]

A judge from San Francisco.

This is expected.

First nominated by Ronald Reagan, but stalled.
Successfully nominated by George H.W. Bush.

 

[useless]

"Not only does prop 8 not meet strict scrutiny, I'm not even going to bother talking about that because it can't even meet a rational basis standard of review." - Page 122

^ Exactly.

 

[flamingzaroc121]

AP reporting that Prop 8 has been overturned

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

 

[MobBoss]

Bigots, you have lost.

Seriously. Do you have any doubt that this wont go all the way to SCOTUS, which has already ruled that the states have a right to define marriage as 1 man + 1 woman?

This is Rocky vs Apollo Creed and its only the 3rd round. Pace yourself, or you might not make it to the end to see it.

As to the rest of the flaming rhetoric that will surely occur in this thread: pass.

 

[useless]

Comments from above article:

"Its true you know..the divorce rate will sky rocketThe actuall numbers indicate the average HOMOSENSUAL has 1500 lovers by age 30!!hhmmmm, interesting isnt it"

"This queer judge is no different than Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei. 30 states changed their state constitution, and even leftist Californians voted for it and their state supreme court said it was legal. But again to prove that homosexuality is an insanity, this gay judge ignores that the rule of law and just deems all the laws invalid because he wants to wear a wedding dress. Sickening."

We still have a lot to fight against, people!

Mob you are literally on the same side as these people.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Sort of a side question here, how does something that's "unconstitutional" get on the ballot in the first place? People spend a lot of time and effort between campaigning and voting on these these, so the system seems backwards to me.

 

[MobBoss]

Mob you are literally on the same side as these people.

Absolutely. I am all for the citizens having a say in their government and that they should have the absolute right to define marriage however they desire.

 

[useless]

No you are against homosexual marriage on the basis that your 2000 year old book deemed it wrong.

 

[Godwynn]

Absolutely. I am all for the citizens having a say in their government and that they should have the absolute right to define marriage however they desire.

Which comes in handy, because I don't think Jews should be allowed to marry.

 

[MobBoss]

No you are against homosexual marriage on the basis that your 2000 year old book deemed it wrong.

And among other reasons (of which there is little point in even trying to go there). But the point is what does it matter why I am against it? Dont I have as much a say so as anyone else equally in this matter? Of course I do. My vote counts just as much as yours does.

And seeing as how California already has a civil union law, this simply isnt about rights...its about a single word. That word being: marriage.

Which comes in handy, because I don't think Jews should be allowed to marry.

Well, if you think you can get enough signatures to get it on a ballot then go for it. I am sure Mel Gibson might help you out fund wise.

 

[JerichoHill]

Absolutely. I am all for the citizens having a say in their government and that they should have the absolute right to define marriage however they desire.

You're obviously for Mob rule.

I'm cool when things are like, 70/30. But when its 52/48, there are clear splits

My ideal solution is civil unions for all and churches being private entities can marry who they want. That way say, if baptists want to protect marriage, they can, because they only recognize baptist marriages in their church, thus marraige for them is protected.

simple. effective. respectful.

 

[Arwon]

How's this for a judgement? In reviewing the law, Walker looked at the basis of the ban, and found the following based on the pro and anti gay marriage testimony.

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

You case has been presented, anti-marriage people, and it has been found wanting.

 

[useless]

If you really want to save and protect marriage, Mob, why don't you rally against the evils of Divorce and ban that, or do the queers only deserve such treatment?

 

[warpus]

Dont I have as much a say so as anyone else equally in this matter? Of course I do. My vote counts just as much as yours does.

Not in this case. The majority doesn't get to decide what's right and what's wrong.