Forbidden Donut

Are you elated because you're pro gay marriage or anti state legislation? Or both?

I am pro equal rights, and in this case that encompasses the right for two people to marry regardless of their orientation/gender.

I am not at all against a state's right to legislate. To the contrary, I believe states should legislate their own affairs significantly more than they do today (and I'd wager significantly more than most on this forum would agree with). But a state having the right to legislate does not mean that it can create unconstitutional laws. I think prop. 8 was the perfect example of why simple majority-rule is inherently flawed, and it is a huge relief to see that the fundamental system of checks and balances that underscore our government have come through in such a big win for the people.

Are you engaging in false dichotomies because you don't understand debate or because you rape babies? Or both?

Edit: I'm fairly thrilled as well. Because I'm pro-equality and pro-freedom and anti-theocratic.

Edit2: I wonder what happens next. In 1967, when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional, it effectively legalized all interracial marriage in the US. This decision is only binding in CA though, right?

My answer to everything is Legalize It.

Also, gtfo. Californians only.

Have not read the decision or anything about it yet, but I wanted to stir up shit.

What does Obama think of the ruling with his stance on gay marriage?

(I think he is against gay marriage [and likes civil unions] but is also against the defense of marriage act because he thinks states should be able to decide how to treat the issue- and here Cal. voters passed prop 8)

I think that any politician's feelings on the matter are largely divorced from their statements thereof.

But making this into a states rights issue is pretty ridiculous. The judge who overruled it is ALSO from California. The federal government has not interfered in the state's operation in the least. I don't believe there has been so much as a peep from the administration during the proceedings.

CA citizens may have voted to pass prop 8, but then it was challenged. The challenge rose through the courts to the state supreme court. Then the judge hearing the case ruled the initiative unconstitutional.

Think:
If your state voted to outlaw service in the armed forces. Or voted to outlaw ALL firearms except for police. It would likely be challenged. And it would likely make it to the supreme court. And it would likey be ruled unconstitutional.

This is working precisely the way it should.

The supreme irony is that the appeals process could launch this debate into the national stage where the SCotUS would have to make a ruling. They are primarily conservative atm, so they may rule either way, but if it's ruled unconstitutional THERE, then the proponents of prop 8 would have nobody to blame for the blanket legalization of gay marriage NATIONWIDE and the subsequent "violation of state's rights" but themselves.

I still haven't read the opinion, but it was a federal district court that made the ruling, not the California Supreme Court.

Could someone sum up the reason it was ruled unconstitutional for me?

yeee I voted against this when it was on the ballot a while back, but can't say I was surprised it passed when it did - lots of backwoods California is fairly unprogressive. Hope this stays overturned, the appeals are going to be a bitch

The judge ruled that the law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th amendment.

The Due Process Clause states that no state can deprive an individual of their fundamental rights without due process. He cites numerous (5) existing cases that support that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right.

The Equal Protection Clause states that no state can deprive an individual of their right to equal protection under the law. The only way a law that allows some group of people to have rights while another does not is if the law has a very clear and legally rational purpose (e.g., states can have laws that you must be 21 to drink because they can demonstrate through factual evidence that people 18-21 have a significantly higher chance of alcohol-related accidents). There is a lot to be said here (I recommend just reading the judgment), but the judge basically determines that there is no "rational" (rational in the sense of the law) reason for this restriction to exist and thus the classification of homosexuals into a group that does not have the same protections under the law is in violation of equal protection.

I recommend reading from page 109; that is where the "Conclusion of Law" begins.

John Stuart had hilarious coverage on this.

On a side note, good work judge.

Whoops, you're right. It's the US District Court.

It still worked exactly as designed and therefore treating this like it's a usurping of the will of the people is silly. The people can appeal.

The main point is: you can't just vote to abridge the rights of a group of people.

I'm still curious. This has no standing outside of CA one way or the other, right?

As far as I know, District Court decisions can help set precedent but are not binding beyond specific cases. The outcome of this particular case is that the specific law banning same sex marriage in California is deemed unconstitutional and is thus void. Other similar laws in states within the same district would have to be challenged individually.

If this case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (and they choose to hear it), then their decision will have a national impact. This is not a challenge to a federal law, so same sex marriage won't suddenly be legal in every state. However, it will be illegal for any state to ban same sex marriage, so pretty much any legal challenge to same-sex marriage restrictions in any state will basically be a sure-thing.

I believe that is generally the case, but I would greatly appreciate input from people more knowledgeable on the subject.

Gov your analysis is correct. Only thing to point out is that the ruling is from the US District Court in the Northern District of California so there are no other states in that district.

If it is appealed and upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then the reasoning behind the decision will be binding on all the states within the 9th circuit. If that is appealed and upheld by the Supreme Court then the reasoning is binding on all states.

Then there's no conflict between agreeing with this judge's decision and believing in state's rights.

True. You can still believe the judge ruled the wrong way in that it was a legitimate exercise of state power (I don't believe that, don't worry).

Since when is it a legitimate exercise of state power to limit a citizen's personal freedoms when they are not harming or threatening to harm themselves OR anyone else? I see that you're saying you don't believe it, but still, that doesn't seem like a legitimate argument to even bring up. It might as well be segregation you're believing in at that point in time.

Bill

FWIW, I've got no problem with voters ... voting on stuff. You'll run aground in some pretty murky territory every now and again, but our system is designed to mitigate the effects of tyranny of the majority.

This is how you legalize drugs/prostitution, enact sweeping prison reforms, etc. But it's also how you end up drafting anti-miscegenation laws... so there's that.

Apparently the judge is going to decide today to lift the stay on his ruling or not. If lifted then gay couples can immediately get married until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides to reapply the stay while waiting to hear the case. I don't know how likely it is that they would reapply the stay, but there could be like a window of 2 hours this afternoon in California where marriages could be legal.

Great article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/0859920103770...HJvcDhnYXktbWFy

The new ruling says the stay is to be lifted next week and this gives the proponents of prop 8 a chance to ask the 9th circuit for a stay in the meantime. The ruling also says that the proponents might not even have standing to appeal. This is because the Gov and Atty Gen of California decided not to defend the law in the case. At trial the judge let some proponent group step in to defend the law but now he says that same group might not have standing to appeal. Crazy shit. And if they don't have standing to appeal, then the current ruling only matters for California and there is no way for it to have national significance.