Judge Rules California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional 8/4/10

[gitana1]

Under our system, human rights are not subject to majority vote; that's why they are called rights. Judge Turner specifically points out that a majority of Californians once voted to legalize racial discrimination in housing; that vote was rightfully overturned by the courts.

Fortunately, our constitutions (federal and state) are just as concerned about tyranny by the majority as they are about tyranny by a king or dictator.

The authors of those documents wisely realized that no minority is safe, and society as a whole can never be stable, if some people can be declared "non-people" or "less than full citizens" simply because they differ from the majority.

This ought to be painfully obvious to all Americans, given that we live in a country in which no ethnic group, no religious denomination and no political party actually constitutes a full majority. And let's remember that at various times and places, majority votes have endorsed human slavery, the persecution and slaughter of certain people based on their religious faith, the imprisonment and murder of homosexuals, the marginalization of the handicapped, and the general denial of human rights to women.

So rather than banging our heads against the wall, let's try not imposing our arbitrary prejudices on everyone else.

Super powerful, beautifully expressed. Thank you.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

This should have never been overturned. Ridiculous. We the people of Ca. voted for this. No way should it have been overturned.
WHY even VOTE then???? :banghead:

Well, I for one, agree with you lilpony. Why did they put it to a vote if the outcome of the vote didn't matter.

I'd also like to say, that just because someone is opposed to gay marriage, it does not make them a bad person or a person who is stuck in a different time period. It simply means they think it is wrong for various reasons. Those who are opposed to gay marriage, should not feel guilty or like they are judged as bad people.

That's the great thing about being an American and a WS member. We can have different opinions and view points on issues.

 

[Nova]

Well, I for one, agree with you lilpony. Why did they put it to a vote if the outcome of the vote didn't matter.

I'd also like to say, that just because someone is opposed to gay marriage, it does not make them a bad person or a person who is stuck in a different time period. It simply means they think it is wrong for various reasons. Those who are opposed to gay marriage, should not feel guilty or like they are judged as bad people.

That's the great thing about being an American and a WS member. We can have different opinions and view points on issues.

"They" put it on the ballot because there is a hardcore group of religious fanatics whose faith is apparently so fragile it can't survive unless they can impose their views on my house as well. It is absurdly easy to get a proposition--even one amending the constitution--on the ballot in California. The intention was to make our state more democratic; the result has simply been chaos, as most propositions are written by special interests and then "sold" to the public with disingenuous and deliberately misleading fear campaigns. Such was the case with Prop 8--as the judge pointed out after carefully reviewing the evidence.

Courts strongly resist ruling on "hypotheticals" and declined to rule on the constitutionality of the measure until after it had passed. The California Supreme Court gave in to public pressure and approved Prop 8 by contradicting everything the justices had said in their original ruling allowing same-sex marriage six months earlier. (Unfortunately, California jurists are subject to public recall and were greatly threatened in this case if they ruled any other way.)

No, I don't think people who oppose gay marriage are "bad people" in every way. But let's don't pretend it is virtuous or benign to insist on imposing your personal views on other people. I vigorously defend the right of anyone to believe any arbitrary, even bat$hit craxy thing they want to believe; that doesn't mean they have the right to impose their nonsense in my house.

Personally, I'm not crazy about marriages where it is held that the husband is the "ruler" of the household and the "wife" is to be submissive. (Thankfully, such marriages are not as common as they once were.) But for me to make such unions between consenting adults illegal would be morally wrong, not just a benign difference of opinion.

Prop 8 is a classic example of a slim majority of people imposing their will in an area that doesn't even affect them, all to the detriment of those for whom the issue may literally be a matter of life or death.

And trust me, "being an American" is NOT so "great" when you are held to be a second-class citizen without full legal rights.

(Note: this entire discussion is about marriage as a civil institution. Nearly everyone--most certainly including me--defends the right of religious institutions to decide who is eligible for marriage as a religious sacrament. Just as they have to right to decide who may be baptized, who may get a divorce, and who may receive Communion.)

 

[Nat]

The rights of a minority should never be decided by a vote from the majority.

I will never understand why people get so worked up over this. It's ridiculous. So many other countries around the world have granted this right with far less fanfare and hysteria. Religious doctrine needs to GTFO of politics.

 

[Belinda]

I'm still dancing over this ruling. I just feel so strongly that it is the right thing to do. People should not be kept from something so central to our lives. I can't even imagine being in love with someone and being told that my relationship wasn't good enough to qualify for marriage. Many of these couples have children who deserve to have married parents. I, frankly, just don't understand what the big deal is. If being able to marry will complete their lives and give them happiness and security, then so be it. Everyone deserves love and security. I hope the ban will be lifted immediately and the proponents will fail to get an emergency order from the appeals court.

 

[Trino]

I'm still dancing over this ruling. I just feel so strongly that it is the right thing to do. People should not be kept from something so central to our lives. I can't even imagine being in love with someone and being told that my relationship wasn't good enough to qualify for marriage. Many of these couples have children who deserve to have married parents. I, frankly, just don't understand what the big deal is. If being able to marry will complete their lives and give them happiness and security, then so be it. Everyone deserves love and security. I hope the ban will be lifted immediately and the proponents will fail to get an emergency order from the appeals court.

I completely agree. I don't see how someone else marrying would ever affect my life.

 

[Nova]

I'm still dancing over this ruling. I just feel so strongly that it is the right thing to do. People should not be kept from something so central to our lives. I can't even imagine being in love with someone and being told that my relationship wasn't good enough to qualify for marriage. Many of these couples have children who deserve to have married parents. I, frankly, just don't understand what the big deal is. If being able to marry will complete their lives and give them happiness and security, then so be it. Everyone deserves love and security. I hope the ban will be lifted immediately and the proponents will fail to get an emergency order from the appeals court.

Thank you, Belinda, for the great post.

I assure you from my own personal experience that being able to marry my partner meant a very great deal to our children, grandchildren, sisters, nieces and nephews. Probably meant more to them than to us. And we'd already been together for 31 years by the time it became legal for us to marry, so it's not as if our relationship was any great mystery.

Hell, even my husband's ex (the mother of our children) and her current husband were so happy about it they threw a huge party for us on the other side of the continent.

And yes, we already had a legally recognized domestic partnership, but much to my surprise, it simply wasn't the same thing to our kids and other relatives. One of the interesting side benefits of civil marriage (and not one I've seen addressed by the courts) is that both my and my husband's families felt they were finally connected to each other once our union was legalized.

And isn't that one of the prime reasons for civil marriage? That it is a stabilizing influence on society as it helps to build a greater feeling of community?

I wasn't a big agitator for marriage rights before, but I learned a great deal about the importance of public recognition of marriage from the experience of actually getting it.

 

[Belinda]

Thanks so much for sharing, Nova. I confess that I was once very against gay marriage. But, I kept studying it and kept reading about it and finally had an epiphany that, hey guess what, they are just like me! It now seems so completely silly to me that I ever felt any other way. When the truth hit me, it hit me hard and I have been a very vocal supporter ever since. I want so much to see all of these couples achieve fulfillment and completion in their relationships. I want to see children with happy, married parents. These relationships are every single bit as important and valid as mine is. How could I have ever been so stupid to think otherwise? I am just thankful that I didn't approach it with a closed mind. I investigated and I studied. I read all the interviews with gay couples. It just became so crystal clear to me that my thinking was all wrong and that these couples want no more than what I, myself, have. And I could not think of a single reason that they should not have it.

One of the issues I do struggle with a little bit is transgenders. I am not against them by any means, just a little confused. I recently read a couple of great interviews and came away with the knowledge that all they are looking for is acceptance. They simply want to be accepted for who they are. They, to my understanding, are people simply born into the wrong sex body. Lots of things can go wrong with fetuses. Why not that? That made a lot more sense to me. Though still not completely comfortable with the subject, I continue to investigate and to learn. I think we, as human beings, have an obligation to really try to understand other people and to search for reasons to accept them. Too many people search for reasons to reject others. I can't do that.

Sorry, getting off my soapbox now. This is just such an important issue to me. It doesn't matter that it has no effect on my life. The injustice is so striking that I can't accept it. I closely follow every decision in every state and cheer loudly with every vote for equality.

 

[Nova]

...I confess that I was once very against gay marriage. But...

I don't think you were stupid, Belinda. You grew up with the same received values that everyone else (gay and straight) in our society did. Your open-mindedness, however, is simply inspirational.

Although I'm not terribly optimistic about our Supreme Court at the moment, I do believe that most Americans, like you, come down on the side of simple fairness when they fully understand an issue. Too often, unfortunately, they are inundated with propaganda about bestiality, threesomes, etc., because certain factions have decided gay marriage is a convenient wedge interest to distract people from things that actually affect them.

As for transgenders, I'm no expert, but I understand your discomfort. I used to share it, frankly, but over time, I've known enough people with various gender issues that I've simply gotten used to the idea. You are right: they are simply people who want to feel comfortable in their own skin. And what's so wrong about that?

 

[Belinda]

The propaganda tactics used to get Prop 8 to pass were nothing short of shameful. It was flat out propaganda and scare tactics. I was pretty horrified at the things they were promoting as 'truth.' They call themselves religious, yet have no qualms about distorting the truth and out and out lying when it suits them. I was so pleased that all of those scare tactics were shown in court and included in the record. It showed very clearly exactly how they got Prop 8 to pass and it wasn't by playing fair. They didn't give people the information to make an informed choice. They played on their fears to scare them into voting for it. In fact they played themselves right into a court defeat because they showed themselves to be exactly what gays need to be protected against.

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

I am happy to hear it, I suppose folks will still try to fight it(sigh)...but a good victory to hear about. It was Argentina that just made Gay marriage totally legal, like with all the rights of finances and whatnot...yay Argentina. And, go California! It does give me hope.

:twocents:

 

[Nova]

The propaganda tactics used to get Prop 8 to pass were nothing short of shameful. It was flat out propaganda and scare tactics. I was pretty horrified at the things they were promoting as 'truth.' They call themselves religious, yet have no qualms about distorting the truth and out and out lying when it suits them. I was so pleased that all of those scare tactics were shown in court and included in the record. It showed very clearly exactly how they got Prop 8 to pass and it wasn't by playing fair. They didn't give people the information to make an informed choice. They played on their fears to scare them into voting for it. In fact they played themselves right into a court defeat because they showed themselves to be exactly what gays need to be protected against.

I already hit the "thanks" button, but I'm quoting here because I just can't imagine how your remarks could be stated any better!

My husband and I rushed to get married not because it was urgent to us personally (we're fortunate to both have very supporting biological families), but because with a referendum pending, we thought it was important to show that gay marriages such as ours really don't affect, must less harm, anybody else. 18,000 gay couples did likewise. (Beyond simple fairness, gay marriage was actually economic boost in some parts of the state.)

Unfortunately, our example wasn't dramatic enough to compete with all the TV ads that insisted the sky was falling. Maybe Judge Turner's beautifully written opinion will be more effective.

BTW, my beloved and otherwise perfect son-in-law is a staunch Republican. (At heart he's a Libertarian and has always been very pro civil rights, however.) Yesterday I noticed he was involved in a lengthy Facebook chain of various Republicans applauding the overturning of Prop 8.

So maybe the times they really ARE a'changin'...

 

[Belinda]

Nova - I am so happy you were able to benefit from the period of time when gay marriage was 'allowed.' I hate to use that word. Allowed. Why should anyone need to be 'allowed' something they have a perfect RIGHT to? It's patently ridiculous that there are now some same-sex married couples and some who aren't 'allowed.' What kind of nonsense is that?

Anyone who has any doubt about gay marriage should read every word of Judge Walker's ruling. You cannot read that opinion and not be moved by it. If you take the time to read what each side had to say and look at the evidence presented by each side, you will see how the arguments against gay marriage just fall away in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I truly don't think the judge could have done a better job of laying out the information presented. I felt that his assessments were dead on and based on solid facts presented by the experts.

As far as the discussion over whether the judge is gay - so what? I don't know whether he is or not, but I don't see what difference that makes to the evidence presented. The ruling was based on evidence, not the judge's sexual orientation. The case was presented so strongly, I see no way anyone could claim bias. The same could then be said if he is heterosexual and had ruled the other way. He didn't make the evidence. He ruled on the preponderance of the evidence presented. That's his job.

 

[Elphaba]

Prop 8 was a HIGHLY financed package of scare tactics and propaganda that was geared more from people out-of-state, IMO, that should not have had an influence on the vote in the first place. I thought we were going to see the same thing go down in DC when some preachers from Maryland joined in pushing for and vocalizing for a Prop8-style vote in the District. Thankfully their outside tactics didn't work and DC legalized gay marriage...

 

[Belinda]

I was so proud of the way DC just brushed aside all the special interest groups and remained focused on the unconstitutionality of the current law. They have also refused to hear several challenges to the new law. I really like the way they have handled the issue. I especially liked their response to the numerous threats from the Catholics and what they were going to do if it passed. If they can refuse to provide services to the underprivileged that they are PAID to provide, they aren't much in the way of christians as far as I see it. I loved that DC refused to bow to their threats. That's the way it should be. Rights are rights and should not be determined or affected by special interest groups. The Catholic Church has been skating on pretty thin ice with their continued forages into legislation and politics. That is strictly against the rules for non-profits and someone needs to call them out on it. I have nothing against religion, but it doesn't belong in the government. It belongs in the church.

 

[Nova]

Prop 8 was a HIGHLY financed package of scare tactics and propaganda that was geared more from people out-of-state, IMO, that should not have had an influence on the vote in the first place. I thought we were going to see the same thing go down in DC when some preachers from Maryland joined in pushing for and vocalizing for a Prop8-style vote in the District. Thankfully their outside tactics didn't work and DC legalized gay marriage...

It's not just your opinion that Prop 8 was highly financed by people and organizations outside the state. It's a fact.

 

[daisy7]

Not good (IMO) breaking news on CNN

Judge blocks same-sex marriage in California

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has blocked same-sex marriage in California, until it hears broader questions over the constitutionality of such marriages.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/federal-judge-blocks-same-sex-marriage-in-california/

 

[Belinda]

I was profoundly disappointed to wake up to this news this morning. I was so hopeful they wouldn't issue a stay. I am so sorry that couples are still being kept from marrying the person they love.

Two good things I noticed. They did ask the proponents to justify their legal standing to appeal the case, which they have to file in September. The other thing is that they have expedited the case and will hear it in December.

I was so hopeful with the strong statements by the governor and the attorney general to allow the marriages to go forth. I really wasn't expecting the stay. Was anyone else?

 

[Nova]

I was profoundly disappointed to wake up to this news this morning. I was so hopeful they wouldn't issue a stay. I am so sorry that couples are still being kept from marrying the person they love.

Two good things I noticed. They did ask the proponents to justify their legal standing to appeal the case, which they have to file in September. The other thing is that they have expedited the case and will hear it in December.

I was so hopeful with the strong statements by the governor and the attorney general to allow the marriages to go forth. I really wasn't expecting the stay. Was anyone else?

Of course I was hopeful the stay would be denied, but I can't say I'm really surprised. I'm still hoping that the granting of the stay doesn't mean the Ninth Circuit judges have already made up their minds on the issue.

Rather, I think the appellate justices are aware that however they rule, the issue is likely to end up before the Supreme Court of the U.S., the most notably conservative court in nearly a century--with at least two members (Scalia and Thomas) who quite openly invoke religious dogma to justify their decisions.

Giving the Ninth Circuit the benefit of the doubt, I think they feared that if they let same-sex marriages continue during the appeals process, then those newly married couples might well find their marriages annulled if Prop 8 is eventually upheld. Such an event can only bring additional hardship to people who are already treated as second-class citizens. Imagine the legal turmoil! Was "community property" accrued while the same-sex marriage was legal? Or were such marriages always illegal and then where would that leave those who received marital benefits (such as tax breaks) during the interim period? Would such couples find they suddenly owed back taxes and the interest thereon?

Maybe I'm naive--though I'm not assuming the Ninth Circuit will eventually uphold Turner's ruling--but I'm choosing to believe the justices who granted the stay were thinking of the best interests of those who might marry in the interim.

In their public statement, even the plaintiffs in the case downplayed the stay and thanked the Ninth Circuit for the expedited schedule.

 

[Belinda]

Nova - Do you have any idea what happens if the appeals court says the proponents don't have standing to appeal? Would that mean Judge Walker's ruling would immediately go into effect? Do you think they will receive standing to appeal? If they do not receive standing to appeal, would it still go to the Supreme Court?

Judge Walker's ruling was so clear cut, I don't see how it could be overturned. Yet, I'm terribly afraid someone will find a way. I felt so sure the appeals court wouldn't issue a stay, but it makes sense that they would want to protect those who wish to marry from any back and forth rulings. It's disheartening nonetheless.