Prop 8 struck down

[LeviF]

It actually is a choice...to the same degree that being hetero is a choice.

That's my point, although more accurately put.

[Andrew in CA]

Given my complete lack of faith in the Court, I hope they don't.

It would probably come down to Kennedy, again... but at least we'd have uniformity (assuming they decide the specific issue of whether gay marriage can be banned– I haven't read Prop 8 or the opinion striking it down yet so I don't know what the specific issue answered was).

[Andrew in CA]

The fact that he is gay. He has a vested interest in this law being declared unconstitutional.

Interesting, I did not know that.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Because federal statues still take precedence over state, which means direct propositions or no, state law that violates federal law is invalid.

 

 

So then, when California legalizes pot, will this same judge strike it down too?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You mean because that's what happened?

 

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand what "equal" under the law is. Laws that are put in place to obviously discriminate should be struck down in an expeditious manner, as this one was.

 

 

You mean like Affirmative Action....oh, wait.

 

[DC Tom]

You mean because that's what happened?

 

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand what "equal" under the law is. Laws that are put in place to obviously discriminate should be struck down in an expeditious manner, as this one was.

 

And unlike many cases that make it to the circuits and Supreme Court, this one's pretty black-and-white. Federal equal protection clause trumps state law establishing inequal rights, period, end of story. Any moral judgement about discrimination or homosexuality doesn't even begin to enter in to it.

 

Of course, the Supremes, if it gets to them, would completely ignore the legal principle and end up in a 5-4 split with the conservative justices arguing "Constitution, schmonstitution, gay sex is icky." And the 9th Circuit...even money chance those bozos hear the case and end up ruling that yes, indeed, daffodils are entitled to driver's licenses...

[Alaska Darin]

You mean like Affirmative Action....oh, wait.

 

You mean another law I don't agree with? That's called consistency, not the typical hypocrisy most of you show when you cherry pick the **** your religion tells you to be pissed about.

[DC Tom]

So then, when California legalizes pot, will this same judge strike it down too?

 

Not under equal protection.

 

And CA legalizing pot doesn't preclude drug possession being a federal crime...which is the point, knucklehead. Federal statute takes precedent over state law. CA can legalize slavery and kidnapping if they want...it'll still be illegal under federal law.

[Alaska Darin]

And unlike many cases that make it to the circuits and Supreme Court, this one's pretty black-and-white. Federal equal protection clause trumps state law establishing inequal rights, period, end of story. Any moral judgement about discrimination or homosexuality doesn't even begin to enter in to it.

 

Of course, the Supremes, if it gets to them, would completely ignore the legal principle and end up in a 5-4 split with the conservative justices arguing "Constitution, schmonstitution, gay sex is icky." And the 9th Circuit...even money chance those bozos hear the case and end up ruling that yes, indeed, daffodils are entitled to driver's licenses...

That's pretty much the way I see it.

[Rubes]

I haven't looked at the case, but the judge sounds extremely biased to me.

 

Maybe he is...

 

The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.

Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.

 

Linky

[DC Tom]

That's pretty much the way I see it.

 

Maybe we'll be surprised and they'll vote 9-0 that "The Constitution's the Constitution, you stupid !@#$ers."

 

Doubt it, though...it's nice to imagine one branch of the government doing one thing right, though.

[Alaska Darin]

Maybe we'll be surprised and they'll vote 9-0 that "The Constitution's the Constitution, you stupid !@#$ers."

 

Doubt it, though...it's nice to imagine one branch of the government doing one thing right, though.

I lost all faith of that ever happening when "DC vs Heller" went 5-4 on political lines. That was just as easy as this one and the liberals !@#$ed it up royally.

[Fingon]

Maybe he is...

 

 

 

Linky

That doesn't change the fact that he has something to gain by ruling it unconstitutional. Frankly, I'm pro gay marriage, but lets not act like this judge was an impartial arbiter. It's not impartial to have a judge who owns BP stock deciding the inevitable lawsuits against them, and its not impartial to have a gay judge decide this case.

[The Dean]

Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges.

 

Although, as a Californian, I can not say I'm shocked.

 

 

I get a good laugh at how bigots try to rationalize hatred.

[DrDawkinstein]

That doesn't change the fact that he has something to gain by ruling it unconstitutional. Frankly, I'm pro gay marriage, but lets not act like this judge was an impartial arbiter. It's not impartial to have a judge who owns BP stock deciding the inevitable lawsuits against them, and its not impartial to have a gay judge decide this case.

 

what does he "have to gain" exactly? using the BP analogy, is the gay community going to cut him a check? what possible evil, or unjust motive could he have?

 

should black judges not be allowed to proceed over cases where a black person is fighting for their rights?

[The Poojer]

from what I have heard he is biased....just not in the way you may think

 

it should be noted that the US District Judge who issued the decision was nominated to the bench by George H.W. Bush after having initially been nominated by Reagan (but he was not confirmed after his nomination was opposed by House democrats, including Nancy Pelosi)

 

I have also heard or read that the judge also may be gay.....

 

I haven't looked at the case, but the judge sounds extremely biased to me.

[OCinBuffalo]

let the state perform legal civil unions and let religious or social institutions perform marriage why is this so freaken hard- one is the union of legal/financial entities the other the union of spiritual/emotional entities.

Yep.

agreed. Probably due to the ultra-religious would be my guess...

Nope.

 

The liberals and the gays want MARRIAGE, not civil unions, and won't compromise on it. You are blaming the wrong people here. From what I have heard/seen, the ultra religious, for the most part, couldn't care less about civil unions, they just don't want them to be called marriages.

 

This schit was started by liberals in Massachusetts who thought they could ram gay marriage, not civil unions, down our throats(hmm, anybody else see a pattern?). The proposed, rational, compromise = civil unions, was rejected by the liberals and some gays, because it wasn't marriage.

 

45 state anti-gay marriage laws later, and they still haven't learned a thing. This stopped being about gay marriage, and started being about jackass liberals trying to force their agenda, and pissing people off, a long time ago. Unfortunately, gay people's rights are now playing a distant second fiddle. If I was gay, I would ask the liberals to stop "helping" me.

[The Poojer]

I have some democratic leaning friends politicizing this with statements like "....Now it's time for the Republican leadership to let it go. ..."...am I missing something? wasn't this a general election issue where the voters in cali, more registered dems than repubs, freely voted and decided same sex marriage was not to be allowed? where did the republican leadership come into play in this...unless there was heavy campaining by republicans involved....

[The Dean]

I have some democratic leaning friends politicizing this with statements like "....Now it's time for the Republican leadership to let it go. ..."...am I missing something? wasn't this a general election issue where the voters in cali, more registered dems than repubs, freely voted and decided same sex marriage was not to be allowed? where did the republican leadership come into play in this...unless there was heavy campaining by republicans involved....

 

 

Referendums, as a rule, are fairly ridiculous, IMO. This country is a Republic, based on representative democracy. In general people rarely do enough research to know all the ins-and-outs of any particular law or proposal You might argue the same is true for our representatives, but they have staffs who research and report to them. The least capable and informed representative is far more capable and informed than the least of the general public.

 

If you accept that about 10% of the population is gay, then I would expect gay rights to have a poor chance among the general public who, at best, have little concern or knowledge of their plight. Can you imagine where would be now if slavery was put to a general referendum? What about integration? Thankfully redheads never have been considered a lesser class. They wouldn't have a chance.

 

The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves.

[....lybob]

Yep.

 

Nope.

 

The liberals and the gays want MARRIAGE, not civil unions, and won't compromise on it. You are blaming the wrong people here. From what I have heard/seen, the ultra religious, for the most part, couldn't care less about civil unions, they just don't want them to be called marriages.

 

This schit was started by liberals in Massachusetts who thought they could ram gay marriage, not civil unions, down our throats(hmm, anybody else see a pattern?). The proposed, rational, compromise = civil unions, was rejected by the liberals and some gays, because it wasn't marriage.

 

45 state anti-gay marriage laws later, and they still haven't learned a thing. This stopped being about gay marriage, and started being about jackass liberals trying to force their agenda, and pissing people off, a long time ago. Unfortunately, gay people's rights are now playing a distant second fiddle. If I was gay, I would ask the liberals to stop "helping" me.

 

Right except in my proposal there are no state marriages only civil unions - marriages are performed by non state actors