MR

EXCLUSIVE 1:26 PM PT: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection. Will be released at 2 PM PT...
Judge strikes down -- IN 138 PAGE RULING -- 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'...

JUDGE: PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS...

JUDGE: Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...

'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...

JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...



SOURCE: JUDGE KNOCKS DOWN MARRIAGE PROP IN CA

interesting quotes...

Good.

Fact Finder wrote:

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Good.

No, not good. An unelected judge again has disinfranchised the voters of California who passed this measure at the ballot box.

Exactly right. Votes mean absolutely nothing once again.

Fact Finder wrote:

Since 78 wrote:

Fact Finder wrote:

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Good.

No, not good. An unelected judge again has disinfranchised the voters of California who passed this measure at the ballot box.

Exactly right. Votes mean absolutely nothing once again.

That's right, and the judge didn't just do his job, he overstepped his authority and by his will he will impose his policies, voters be damned.

Now I'm hearing that the judge might be gay. NTTATWWT, but it might have biased his decision.

NTTATWWT ....HAHAHA surprised I got that...

brandonpfn wrote:

Fact Finder wrote:

Since 78 wrote:

Fact Finder wrote:

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Good.

No, not good. An unelected judge again has disinfranchised the voters of California who passed this measure at the ballot box.

Exactly right. Votes mean absolutely nothing once again.

That's right, and the judge didn't just do his job, he overstepped his authority and by his will he will impose his policies, voters be damned.

Now I'm hearing that the judge might be gay. NTTATWWT, but it might have biased his decision.

NTTATWWT ....HAHAHA surprised I got that...

holy crap so did I..

I'm personally opposed to gay marriage but I don't think the federal government should be involved at all. Marriage is a privilege not a right and states should individually be able to decide for themselves if gay marriage is allowable or not. I'm also against a constitutional amendment to settle the matter.

And for those who say the majority of voters wanted it, that doesn't necessarily decide the argument one way or another. America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, which means majority doesn't necessarily rule. The founding fathers were mostly against democracy for that very reason. Mob rule isn't always the right way to legislate and I think it's a mistake for the feds to get involved in this issue at all.

Regardless, I'm sure this will move on to the next level and could very well be reversed.

Since the advent of time it has been an almost innate concept that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and it should stay that way. I have no problem with people who choose to live with a same sex mate, but that doesn't mean that we have to legally acknowledge that perverse lifestyle.

Article 10 applies here....

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 state put it to a vote.. the People voted..

marriage (of any kind) is a social institution... not a legal one.. although traditional marriages receive legal benefits.. which IMHO they should not unless those benefits are equally extended to all forms of marriage..

The 1st and 10th Amendments restrict the federal government from legislating morality, and since marriage is a social institution, then one's personal morality is a right, as long as it does not physically infringe on another ones right.

The states have a right to make laws as long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution..

In this case the 1st Amendment trumps.. and the states lose..

BUT...

CA should have never taken this to the vote... the judge repealed it and immediately issued a stay... this will probably be decided by the Supreme Court...


My only opinion on this is that the law should be followed.. and taking it to a vote was subverting the Constitution. But now it will be reviewed by the SCOTUS and decided.

Here we go again...

Saint John wrote:Since the advent of time it has been an almost innate concept that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and it should stay that way. I have no problem with people who choose to live with a same sex mate, but that doesn't mean that we have to legally acknowledge that perverse lifestyle.

Well the only problem is without the legal status, they don't have simple rights that are important to them. Such as a Christian hospital in our area. My gay uncle was not allowed to be in certain areas of the hospital when his partner was in the ER and had surgery. He was not considered an immediate family member and was told no. They don't have that problem at the other hospital in town that has no religious affiliation. You can say it's that hosptitals right, and they should go elsewhere. But sometimes you end up at hospitals you don't plan on or your doctor may have priviledges at one and not the other. And they are stuck. Now that they know they won't set foot in the Christian hospital again if they can help it. If there are laws making their marriage legal, then they can have that basic right to be able to comfort a loved one in a bad situation. The fact hospitals and such places are playing these games is exactly why you are seeing the gay push for equal marriage. They get pushed and they are pushing back. I don't blame them.

StevePerryHair wrote:They get pushed and they are pushing back.

Boy, you can say that again.

PS I'm guessing that the Christian hospital didn't let the gay mate in the room because the resident priest was jealous.

Fact Finder wrote:

conversationpc wrote:I'm personally opposed to gay marriage but I don't think the federal government should be involved at all. Marriage is a privilege not a right and states should individually be able to decide for themselves if gay marriage is allowable or not. I'm also against a constitutional amendment to settle the matter.

And for those who say the majority of voters wanted it, that doesn't necessarily decide the argument one way or another. America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, which means majority doesn't necessarily rule. The founding fathers were mostly against democracy for that very reason. Mob rule isn't always the right way to legislate and I think it's a mistake for the feds to get involved in this issue at all.

Regardless, I'm sure this will move on to the next level and could very well be reversed.

How then should States decide this themselves if not by vote? How do they decide?

I'm talking about at the federal level, not at the state level. The judge that ruled on this was a federal judge, correct?

Saint John wrote:

StevePerryHair wrote:They get pushed and they are pushing back.

Boy, you can say that again.

PS I'm guessing that the Christian hospital didn't let the gay mate in the room because the resident priest was jealous.

:P it wasn't a catholic hospital. It's 7th day Adventist so no priests

StevePerryHair wrote:

Saint John wrote:

StevePerryHair wrote:They get pushed and they are pushing back.

Boy, you can say that again.

PS I'm guessing that the Christian hospital didn't let the gay mate in the room because the resident priest was jealous.

:P it wasn't a catholic hospital. It's 7th day Adventist so no priests

I've worked with some adventists (in fact, one lady I worked with has a daughter who lived in Florida and her hubby was a hospital administrator in an adventist hospital. I wonder... ), and it seems they're religious beliefs are pretty strict, so I'm not surprised by those restrictions. I disagree that 'just' family should ever be allowed in a hospital area, especially when the patient's condition is serious. I cannot imagine preventing someone from seeing a loved one, and that person dies without being with their significant other. There should be allowances for things like this.

That said, I do believe marriage (in the common sense of the word) is a covenant between a man and a woman and should stay that way. Loosen the laws on insurance benefits, etc, but keep marriage intact.

Jeez, why is this SUCH a threat to people? If you don't like it, don't do it. It takes nothing away from anyone. Live and let live... oh wait, that's just if we agree...



If a judge finds a law that passed with a majority vote unconstitutional, then the law SHOULD be over turned. If the law is constitutional, then you have a point.

An incredible victory for the GLBT community! I'm glad our United States Constitution was upheld in this case and the majority was not allowed to rule the minority.

I don't give a flying fuck who "approves" of my life but not having every legal right that every trashy, 4 times married heterosexual has will not be tolerated.

Get used to it haters. When the SCOTUS takes this up, every state that forbids gay marriage will be knocked on its ass and will see stars for a long time to come.

This is not a religious issue and no, marriage has not "always been defined as one man one woman", in Biblical days it was one man and as many women as he wanted and please don't forget you good Christian folks, women were property then, not equal at all.

brywool wrote:Jeez, why is this SUCH a threat to people? If you don't like it, don't do it. It takes nothing away from anyone. Live and let live... oh wait, that's just if we agree...

YES.

If you're secure in your faith and with your sexuality, then you can resolve to not be bothered with the emotional investment where you're not concerned. Since when does the gov't have the ability to overturn the Bible anyway. Legalize gay marriage, give them rights. They're people who love like anyone. Equality is a birthright. And I'm pretty sure California's not got God up there amending the Bible. Separation of church and state, remember?

Anyway, spiritual marriage has nothing to do with laws and propositions and certificates from the clerk's office.

BobbyinTN wrote:Get used to it haters.

I'm kind of tired of all this "haters" garbage. It's an easy out when you're not willing to debate the issue on equal footing. Cast the hate or racist card and that pretty much closes off any meaningful discussion. I'cm not speaking for others but you've never seen me call folks who disagree with me "haters", have you?

...in Biblical days it was one man and as many women as he wanted and please don't forget you good Christian folks, women were property then, not equal at all.

Most Christians have pretty much always believed in one man and one woman in marriage. I think you're going to back to Old Testament times when it wasn't uncommon for people, Jews included, to have many wives.

BobbyinTN wrote:An incredible victory for the GLBT community! I'm glad our United States Constitution was upheld in this case and the majority was not allowed to rule the minority.

I don't give a flying fuck who "approves" of my life but not having every legal right that every trashy, 4 times married heterosexual has will not be tolerated.

Get used to it haters. When the SCOTUS takes this up, every state that forbids gay marriage will be knocked on its ass and will see stars for a long time to come.

This is not a religious issue and no, marriage has not "always been defined as one man one woman", in Biblical days it was one man and as many women as he wanted and please don't forget you good Christian folks, women were property then, not equal at all.

Hey -- easy. You want equality, it wouldn't hurt you to show it. That post reeks of the same smug and bitter judgement that I'm sure you've had to fight in your life.

Rhiannon wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:An incredible victory for the GLBT community! I'm glad our United States Constitution was upheld in this case and the majority was not allowed to rule the minority.

I don't give a flying fuck who "approves" of my life but not having every legal right that every trashy, 4 times married heterosexual has will not be tolerated.

Get used to it haters. When the SCOTUS takes this up, every state that forbids gay marriage will be knocked on its ass and will see stars for a long time to come.

This is not a religious issue and no, marriage has not "always been defined as one man one woman", in Biblical days it was one man and as many women as he wanted and please don't forget you good Christian folks, women were property then, not equal at all.

Hey -- easy. You want equality, it wouldn't hurt you to show it. That post reeks of the same smug and bitter judgement that I'm sure you've had to fight in your life.

bobby's bitter about a lot of things it seems like! He throws a lot of hate around here for someone who doesn't want hate thrown at him maybe he just gets defensive. Who knows. But it just gives people more ammo against the gay community it seems, with that kind of attitude. Stooping to an equal hate level.

"Most Christians" have believed a lot of things over the centuries. That doesn't mean they were always right.

When churches start paying taxes, then they can play a part in the political system. Until then, they need to stay out of it.

Admit it or not, there ARE tons that are being swayed by fear, religious beliefs, and bigotry. It's a fact that nobody will own.
So much of religion (any of them) is built on intolerance. The gay thing isn't for me. It may not be for you. So who the heck
cares if those who are part of that community win once in awhile. ESPECIALLY if it's constitutionally correct?
Having thrown in that last line, the relationship between state judges and federal ones is not something I'm up on.
However, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Like I said, if they find that the law WAS constitutional, then it SHOULD stand- as wrong as it is.

I mean no offense there CPC.

Good!

One thing the framers of the Constitution feared and tried to correct to a using the Constitution (Hence the electoral college), was the "Tyranny of the Majority", they had some successes some failures...but in this case it is right and proper for the Courts to step in an protect the rights of the minority.

Why the government on ANY level can dictate to anyone about marriage is beyond me, that my fellow conservative thinking people can't see this is beyond me as well.

The various government entities need to stay as FAR away from peoples lives as possible, in ALL aspects (Taxes, lifestyle, personal medical decisions etc). PERIOD.

brywool wrote:"Most Christians" have believed a lot of things over the centuries. That doesn't mean they were always right.

No one claims they were always right.

When churches start paying taxes, then they can play a part in the political system. Until then, they need to stay out of it.

Churches don't pay taxes but the individuals within them do. Regardless, churches are not allowed to endorse CANDIDATES. However, they are allowed by law to support or oppose LEGISLATION. It's always been that way and it should stay that way. Conservative churches do it and liberal churches do it.

Admit it or not, there ARE tons that are being swayed by fear, religious beliefs, and bigotry. It's a fact that nobody will own.

No, I wouldn't say TONS. Some, yes, but this is America. You are allowed to be bigoted. That doesn't mean I have to like it but that's the way it is. If a white supremacist wants to support a known KKK member for office, they're allowed to do so regardless of if their religious beliefs bring them to that conclusion or not. I think they're flat-out wrong but they still have the freedom to believe that way.

I mean no offense there CPC.

No offense taken. I think we agree more than not on this issue.

RossValoryRocks wrote:One thing the framers of the Constitution feared and tried to correct to a using the Constitution (Hence the electoral college), was the "Tyranny of the Majority", they had some successes some failures...but in this case it is right and proper for the Courts to step in an protect the rights of the minority.

There is a big movement now amongst progressives to do away with the electoral college. Big mistake, in my opinion. We were set up as a constitutional republic and not a democracy for a reason and this is one of them.

Why the government on ANY level can dictate to anyone about marriage is beyond me, that my fellow conservative thinking people can't see this is beyond me as well.

More conservatives agree with you than you know. I don't personally believe the federal government should have any say in marriage at all. State government is a different matter, though.

The various government entities need to stay as FAR away from peoples lives as possible, in ALL aspects (Taxes, lifestyle, personal medical decisions etc). PERIOD.

A-freakin'-men!

conversationpc wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:Get used to it haters.

I'm kind of tired of all this "haters" garbage. It's an easy out when you're not willing to debate the issue on equal footing. Cast the hate or racist card and that pretty much closes off any meaningful discussion. I'cm not speaking for others but you've never seen me call folks who disagree with me "haters", have you?

...in Biblical days it was one man and as many women as he wanted and please don't forget you good Christian folks, women were property then, not equal at all.

Most Christians have pretty much always believed in one man and one woman in marriage. I think you're going to back to Old Testament times when it wasn't uncommon for people, Jews included, to have many wives.

It's basic logic, if you don't believe all people should be treated equally and fairly under the law, you're a hater.

This is not about "disagreement", if that were the case, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. This is about law and equal rights and enacting laws that make a group of people second class citizens. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers protected the minority from the majority and that's just the way it is.




You can't argue meaningfully with someone who declares you "wrong" for being who you are or uses religion to try and force you into legislated discrimination.

Fact Finder wrote:

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Good.

No, not good. An unelected judge again has disinfranchised the voters of California who passed this measure at the ballot box.

You moron. It's about equal rights. Gays and lesbians have rights here in the USA as well as you do.

God you're fucking ignorant. It's flatout unconstitutional, and never should have been on the ballot.

Rhiannon wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:An incredible victory for the GLBT community! I'm glad our United States Constitution was upheld in this case and the majority was not allowed to rule the minority.


Hey -- easy. You want equality, it wouldn't hurt you to show it. That post reeks of the same smug and bitter judgement that I'm sure you've had to fight in your life.

Until I'm treated with respect why should I give it?

BobbyinTN wrote:It's basic logic, if you don't believe all people should be treated equally and fairly under the law, you're a hater.

Garbage. As I said previously, marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. Regardless, as before stated, I don't think the federal government should be involved in any shape or fashion.

This is not about "disagreement", if that were the case, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. This is about law and equal rights and enacting laws that make a group of people second class citizens. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers protected the minority from the majority and that's just the way it is.

Agreed. Already stated that.

You can't argue meaningfully with someone who declares you "wrong" for being who you are or uses religion to try and force you into legislated discrimination.

I've debated with you meaningfully on several occasions though we disagree, haven't I? As Rhiannon pointed out earlier in regards to your first post, it happens on all sides of the issue, doesn't it?

conversationpc wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:One thing the framers of the Constitution feared and tried to correct to a using the Constitution (Hence the electoral college), was the "Tyranny of the Majority", they had some successes some failures...but in this case it is right and proper for the Courts to step in an protect the rights of the minority.

There is a big movement now amongst progressives to do away with the electoral college. Big mistake, in my opinion. We were set up as a constitutional republic and not a democracy for a reason and this is one of them.

Why the government on ANY level can dictate to anyone about marriage is beyond me, that my fellow conservative thinking people can't see this is beyond me as well.

More conservatives agree with you than you know. I don't personally believe the federal government should have any say in marriage at all. State government is a different matter, though.

The various government entities need to stay as FAR away from peoples lives as possible, in ALL aspects (Taxes, lifestyle, personal medical decisions etc). PERIOD.

A-freakin'-men!

Why should the federal, state or local governments have a say about marriage at all? If the marriage is between 2 consenting people of legal age, it shouldn't be the governments business at all. ANY governments business.

Marriage is a religious institution and here is where separation of Church and State needs to be enforced. If a religious institution wants to allow homosexuals to marry then the STATE (as in any government not the State as in Maryland or California etc etc) has NO BUSINESS telling them no for ANY reason.

In taking back our natural right to live as we chose to, it also would have the added benefit of making the marriage penalty Unconstitutional as well, as the government shouldn't have the right to penalize people for being married via taxation.

So the solution is take it out of the governments hands completely, outside of perhaps a law requiring a legal notification, or in those case where people choose not to have a religious ceremony the government can perform the required legal steps to recognize the marriage.

StevePerryHair wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:An incredible victory for the GLBT community! I'm glad our United States Constitution was upheld in this case and the majority was not allowed to rule the minority.



Hey -- easy. You want equality, it wouldn't hurt you to show it. That post reeks of the same smug and bitter judgement that I'm sure you've had to fight in your life.

bobby's bitter about a lot of things it seems like! He throws a lot of hate around here for someone who doesn't want hate thrown at him maybe he just gets defensive. Who knows. But it just gives people more ammo against the gay community it seems, with that kind of attitude. Stooping to an equal hate level.

I'm not bitter, I'm pissed off. There's a difference and I wonder if people said the same thing about women when they were trying to be treated equally or African Americans or other minorities? I don't care how people view the gay community as long as we're treated equally and fairly under the law, that's all that matters.