Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Buffett and Colbert]

Okay … my 2 cents, because 2 cents is really what any of us really get in the grand scheme of things …

We all know that at one time it was illegal for Black people to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for Women to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for a Black person and a White person to marry each other in the U.S.. Okay. Now at one point in Colorado it was legal for a Man to marry his Donkey. It was. Look it up. Laws have to change and adapt in the U.S. to be inclusive and for us to be able to call ourselves a nation that espouses freedom.

Now in this 'progressive' nation where we now have a Black President and many Women holding powerful positions in Government, one would think that denying rights to a minority group and attempting to create yet another second class citizenry would be a thing of the past. Especially with as hard won as gaining rights was for both of those two groups. And any Black person or Woman who voted for Prop 8 in California is a hypocrite who obviously feel that rights for themselves are fine, but not for others.

Considering that Federal and State benefits are gained from 'marriage' it should likely be thus – instead of a marriage it should be a federal contract between two (or more) consenting adults, presided over by a Justice of the Peace. Yes I did say 'or more'. This should be a legally binding contract and federally united people should have to carry the responsibilities inherent with that union if they are to receive any benefits from that union. Meaning if a man wants 15 wives he should be legally and financially responsible to each of them and any children they create. And as it's consenting on all sides that means all the other 'wives' should be consenting to the union and their signatures required by law.

Now wait – I said 'union' not 'marriage'. This is why – the religious ideal of 'marriage' is obviously colouring way too many people's ideas here. And it's been said that government should be taken out of marriage – fine then, religion should be taken out of contracts that grant federal and/or state benefits. And frankly a 'marriage' performed by a priest, pastor, rabbi etc. should not be considered a FEDERALLY binding contracted union. It's a religious ceremony and does not and should not guarantee state or federal benefits. Which means people married by their church should not be gaining state or federal benefits.

Federal and State benefits are the real issue here. Because Gay people not being able to 'marry' means they are not allowed these benefits which should be allowed to any citizen of the United States as granted by the Laws that govern in it. But wait, Gay people pay taxes do they not? Yes they do, if they are Law abiding citizens, they most certainly do. So do they not deserve the same rights that are granted every other law abiding, tax paying United States citizen? Yes they do, or else they should be granted special dispensation from paying equal taxes as they are not granted equal rights.

Nice second post. My name is Buffy and I approve this message.

[Sdaeriji]

Clearly this judge has a liberal bias, and has been engaging in judicial activism. If he were truly impartial, he would have ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is perfectly legal, since trained legal professionals can only interpret the constitution in one way and alternative interpretations further the "living document" nonsense propagated by liberals and their scientist supporters. The important question to ask is whether or not Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry or Paul Revere would have approved of gay marriage, and the obvious answer is "of course not, and they don't appreciate their words being twisted to legitimise it." I know this because I have a time machine.
I look forward to Proposition 8 being reinstated on appeal, as it must if this nation is to remain good and moral and pure. Although with the Obamacrat in charge we can expect that the Supreme Court will have been renamed the Gay Court by the time this case is heard, unfortunately.

1. Some dudes 200+ years ago have nothing to do with it. Despite the opinion of T. Jefferson, the founders were not Demigods, just bourgeoisie men trying to make an experiment. And they were not always right. They screwed up with the Articles of Confederation (leaning to much on the idealism of the people), and they hated democracy (though it gave same people to much power). So, considering WWTPD probably does not work (at all). And, you no idea what they though, just what you think, shoving it is their mouths. For all we know, they could have been gay. You need to stop relaying on your fantasy land Founding Fathers and come to terms with the fact that this is the 21st century.

2. By the way, it was your demigod-ic founding Fathers who created the theory of the Constitution being a living document. Were they wrong, or are you wrong? (I will pause for half a second so that you guys can think about that). YOU are the one who is twisting and hearing only what you want to hear from the documents that formed our Constitution.

3. This in no way supports my opinion on gay marriage, or not. I just had to argue on the odd legal idealism manipulation mentioned.

You must feel like an idiot having typed up a three point response to obvious satire.

I am not entirely sure. Glenn Beck SHOULD be satire...
Writing a three pronged response to something logical is no fun. Of course it is satire. Go back to law school?

The only thing funnier than seeing people get suckered by satire is the gymnastics they perform to avoid admitting they got suckered by satire.

[Ifreann]

Clearly this judge has a liberal bias, and has been engaging in judicial activism. If he were truly impartial, he would have ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is perfectly legal, since trained legal professionals can only interpret the constitution in one way and alternative interpretations further the "living document" nonsense propagated by liberals and their scientist supporters. The important question to ask is whether or not Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry or Paul Revere would have approved of gay marriage, and the obvious answer is "of course not, and they don't appreciate their words being twisted to legitimise it." I know this because I have a time machine.
I look forward to Proposition 8 being reinstated on appeal, as it must if this nation is to remain good and moral and pure. Although with the Obamacrat in charge we can expect that the Supreme Court will have been renamed the Gay Court by the time this case is heard, unfortunately.

1. Some dudes 200+ years ago have nothing to do with it. Despite the opinion of T. Jefferson, the founders were not Demigods, just bourgeoisie men trying to make an experiment. And they were not always right. They screwed up with the Articles of Confederation (leaning to much on the idealism of the people), and they hated democracy (though it gave same people to much power). So, considering WWTPD probably does not work (at all). And, you no idea what they though, just what you think, shoving it is their mouths. For all we know, they could have been gay. You need to stop relaying on your fantasy land Founding Fathers and come to terms with the fact that this is the 21st century.

2. By the way, it was your demigod-ic founding Fathers who created the theory of the Constitution being a living document. Were they wrong, or are you wrong? (I will pause for half a second so that you guys can think about that). YOU are the one who is twisting and hearing only what you want to hear from the documents that formed our Constitution.

3. This in no way supports my opinion on gay marriage, or not. I just had to argue on the odd legal idealism manipulation mentioned.

You must feel like an idiot having typed up a three point response to obvious satire.

I am not entirely sure. Glenn Beck SHOULD be satire...
Writing a three pronged response to something logical is no fun. Of course it is satire. Go back to law school?

The only thing funnier than seeing people get suckered by satire is the gymnastics they perform to avoid admitting they got suckered by satire.

I find it appropriate that this harlequin is providing amusement. My world is in the proper shape

[The Comments Section]

Would the founders and other americans found the idea of homosexuality odd?
Yes, but that goes along with the times.

Are we intended to go exactly by our founder's quotes?
No, as the Constitution they established was meant to be flexible to the times, and to include ideas that they were sure would be unthinkable to them.

Our nation was not founded on the morality of our founders, but the ability to change government as times change.

and it was expected that moral standards would change. the founders were expecting slavery to fall out of favor and wither away without the need of a civil war, for example.

Yes, and they felt it best, for the preservation of popular sovereignty and rule by the governed, to allow for those to influence the legislation, while not making it as easy as a windblow for every moral standard change.

[The Resurgent Dream]

DRAT.


I was strongly disappointed in this ruling, but I agree that it was bound to happen. The queers backed up behind the minority shield and now cry discrimination when people try to protect true marriage.
Instead of facing their disease and taking steps or therapy to overcome it, they “embrace” it and march their flaw down our streets and make out in public JUST to tick the religious minority off. Until 1975, homosexuality WAS a disease and there were even ways in development to help treat it.

What if we had Straight Pride Parades and marched THAT down the gayest district of your local metropolis? How would that feel?


Even if you’re not religious, the implications are obvious. Marriage is a (holy) social contract binding a male and a female for economic, inheritance, sexual/procreation, and of course, relegious reasons. Take the religion out, and you still have one man and one woman filing joint taxes, having kids, and sharing a bed.

Plus, homosexuality is a defiance of human nature. While it has existed since the beginning of mankind, it was never considered “natural” in mordern times until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. (-and don’t say Rome thought it was: just because Calligula or soem other nutjob emperor had gay reproduction doesn’t mean it’s right, he’s not even that good an example!)
If you want to challenge me, take an electrical plug. Now, take another electrical plug. Try to connect the two and turn the two on. It doesn’t work. Now, take that same plug and plug it into an electrical socket. Does it light up?

Learn a lesson from plumbing or computing: everything goes into something, and a male plug and a male plug don’t work. There must be something it fits into for the current to be carried! It’s common sense!

Face it, most of the country doesn't like gays (that or they're apathetic). Some time soon, the Masses will take up their arms of bigotry and do SOMETHING to halt this madness.

I deny your right to speak for the country. Your posts in this thread and, even more so, your conduct and comments during the Conclave thread, speak to a very isolated viewpoint.

This is NOT like the civil rights of the 1960s. Race can't be helped. I'm a white guy and he's a black guy. Or, I'm a man, she's a woman. That's just how we are, it's natural. Such things mean nothing in the workplace. However, if my workers start flirting with their own gender instead of being productive, I'd fire them! Or better... put a "NO GAYS NEED APPLY" sign on my busineess' door. I'd have plenty others to hire.

Religiously, there is no Biblical reason barring interracial marriage, but marriage is defined in the Bible. This is not a Christian nation and it's not a nation that is permitted to have a state faith, but I don't think someone has the right to violate another's absolute core beliefs. Besides, this was NEVER a problem until recently. If it was so important, why didn't the so-called "gay rights" spring up when the real battles began in the 1960s?

Not adhering to another's core beliefs and violating them in the sense you pretend to mean are fundamentally different concepts. This is probably pretty obvious to you when it isn't your beliefs which are in question. People drive and work on Saturday. People eat pork and shrimp and cheeseburgers. Heck, people eat meat in general. People drink alcohol and caffeine. People divorce and remarry even among heterosexuals. People dance. People marry without their father's permission. People go out without hats. Women go out with their arms uncovered. People make images of Mohammad. Most, if not all, of these acts are probably inoffensive to you. However, all of them violate some people's sincerely held religious beliefs, core beliefs held as deeply as you hold yours. Are they all denied the right to practice their religion? No. Not adhering to your belief does not violate your right to hold it and to govern your own life by it.

---

At least this affront to decency won’t touch Georgia. Yet.

I guess we’ll have to take it higher. FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, here we come! I am confident that the silent majority will stop this madness if it begins knocking on their home state's door.

This is a downer. ...-but... there's still more than thirty eight states who would sign on to a federal ban... -and until you can convince the entire Southeast that homosexuality is okay, I don't think they'll shut up about it. Start with the schools: indoctrinate "gay is okay" into the public school system. Maybe you'll get minions down South if you do.

I doubt that. The numbers are fairly close even in most states which haven't legalized gay marriage. I also deny your right to speak for the Southeast. I have lived in Tennessee, Mississippi, and North Carolina. My father's family is from Arkansas and Georgia, my mother's from Tennessee. I grew up almost entirely in the South and I grew up in the church. I am old enough to have been taught against homosexuality in school. Nonetheless, I am completely against bills like Prop 8. While I know many people who are against gay marriage, I have only met a handful of people as extreme as you in my life.

(Also, how is a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? Didn't the PEOPLE want a ban on gay marriage? Did most of California not express their views by their right to vote? What gives a tiny minority of people the right to disallow everyone else from protecting marriage?)

It's an amendment to the California Constitution. It was found to violate the United States Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Also, in California, that "tiny" minority was 48%. Nationally, 43% of Americans support same-sex marriage and 6% is unsure. Your huge, silent majority is a 51% majority. Stop presuming to speak for everyone. It gets pretty tedious.

[Grave_n_idle]

problem is I don't actually care enough to form a coherent argument and then put it in thread form

Then what you are admitting to doing is spam.

The door's over there.

[New new nebraska]

Winnig at this level might as well not have counted as a win at all. It was guarenteed to be apealled either way. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. And at least at this point in time the Prop 8 opposers will probably loose. In fact I doubt it will even be 5-4. in a few years from now maybe they will win at the Supreme Court. If they loose now (well 2011 or 2012) the Prop 8 opposers will just have to wait until a more liberal SCOTUS before they win at the final desination. With a court a conservative as ever, even if they got the law branded unconstitutional at every other level, they'll lose in the SCOTUS.

[Farnhamia]

Winnig at this level might as well not have counted as a win at all. It was guarenteed to be apealled either way. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. And at least at this point in time the Prop 8 opposers will probably loose. In fact I doubt it will even be 5-4. in a few years from now maybe they will win at the Supreme Court. If they loose now (well 2011 or 2012) the Prop 8 opposers will just have to wait until a more liberal SCOTUS before they win at the final desination. With a court a conservative as ever, even if they got the law branded unconstitutional at every other level, they'll lose in the SCOTUS.

Please explain how they'll lose in the Supreme Court. The judge in this case appears to have purposely used a lower test of validity for the law than should be applied, and even under that, it failed. The supporters of Proposition 8 cannot demonstrate how the State of California (or by extension, any state) has a real, compelling interest in forbidding same-sex marriage. What harm does same-sex marriage do that it requires legislation to ensure that it does not happen? Real harm, not making Baby Jesus cry (which can be ameliorated by Grown-Up Jesus wiping his tears and giving him a toy to play with).

[Ryadn]

Lelouche's incredibly long red herring of an argument reminds me of the debate between Harvey Milk and John Briggs over Prop 6. One of arguments made by proponents of Prop 6 was that homosexual schoolteachers could molest their students. When Milk pointed out that statistically child-molesters were overwhelming straight men who molested girls, and that banning homosexuals from teaching would not end this particular problem, Briggs offered the feeble excuse that banning homosexuals was at least a good place to start. Lelouche seems to believe that banning homosexuals from marrying is a good place to start in his campaign to stop 'government-recognized marriage', despite the fact that such a ban has a very minor overall influence.

I believe his argument and his motivations behind it just as much as I believe that John Briggs was really motivated by fear for the children.

put on your dunce cap, and enjoy it


I am not for banning marriage for homosexuals, or even straight people
by all means, get married
I'm for removing it as an institution to be controlled and regulated by the state

Nothing says "I have no coherent defense against your argument" like pointless flaming. I'll accept my victory.

[Dempublicents1]

Please explain how they'll lose in the Supreme Court.

Personally, I'm expecting the court to find some weird technical issue to rule on and avoid the question. I'm not sure what that might be in this case, but it's what I expect.

I'm still making my way through the decision, but so far I'd say it will be damn hard for them to find a reason to overturn on the merits of the case. The proponents seem to have utterly failed to build a case.

[Farnhamia]

Please explain how they'll lose in the Supreme Court.

Personally, I'm expecting the court to find some weird technical issue to rule on and avoid the question. I'm not sure what that might be in this case, but it's what I expect.

I'm still making my way through the decision, but so far I'd say it will be damn hard for them to find a reason to overturn on the merits of the case. The proponents seem to have utterly failed to build a case.

None of the Justices look like they'd be good at tap-dancing without breaking a hip but stranger things have happened. I agree, the entire case for the defence of Prop 8 seems to have been, "Well, we convinced a lot of people to vote for it, that's why."

[The Resurgent Dream]

None of the Justices look like they'd be good at tap-dancing without breaking a hip but stranger things have happened. I agree, the entire case for the defence of Prop 8 seems to have been, "Well, we convinced a lot of people to vote for it, that's why."

Well, that is the defense. The justices aren't being asked to rule on whether or not Proposition 8 is a good law, only whether or not it's prohibited by the Constitution. If it's not prohibited by the Constitution, then they are bound to uphold the law however stupid they think it might be. That said, in testing laws for compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Court does apply a standard or review and, in applying it, it does look to the state's rationale. If strict scrutiny, the highest standard, is applied, then almost no law will be upheld. If rational basis review is applied, then almost any law will be upheld. All that needs to be established is that it's plausible that some interest other than naked prejudice could be served, even if the law is overinclusive or underinclusive. So, for rational basis review, a claim that marriage is for couples who have children could justify a gay marriage ban and it would not legally matter that infertile or elderly couples could marry nor would it matter that many gay couples have children. Rational basis does not really mean the law is rational. It just means it's possible to come up with a reason. It doesn't even have to be the reason the state gives. I know the judge here said the law failed even rational basis review but it is unlikely most courts would. To win in higher courts, opponents of the law will have to establish that a stricter standard of review should apply. Intermediate review can go either way.

In the past, the Court has been unclear on the standard of review used to judge the constitutionality of distinctions based on sexual orientation. Distinctions based on race are definitely subject to strict scrutiny. Distinctions based on sex are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Distinctions based on whether or not one is an MD are rational basis. In determining which standard of review to apply, the Court looks at 1) Whether or not a group has been historically persecuted (goes to gays) 2) Whether or not a group is unrepresented or underrepresented in the legislative process (This element is based on the theory that influential or numerous groups can defend themselves in the democratic process. This might go to gays. However, some members of the Court have suggested it does not, citing superior disposable income, media access, and increasing public acceptance.) 3) Immutability (I'd say this goes to gays but most social conservatives would likely disagree) 4) Real differences (Where groups are actually different in relevant ways, it's not unfair to make distinctions. There are clearly real differences between same-sex and different-sex couples but what's debatable is if they are relevant. Conservative arguments about the ability of different-sex couples to have their own children through the natural reproductive process are arguments that they are relevant. Liberal arguments about many gays having children, many straights having no children, and the purpose of marriage being a celebration of love between two people are arguments that they are not.)

So that's where it gets tricky legally. That said, my sympathies are with the opponents of Prop 8 and, if it is upheld by the Court, I hope it is repealed through the legislative process.

[Katganistan]

Okay … my 2 cents, because 2 cents is really what any of us really get in the grand scheme of things …

We all know that at one time it was illegal for Black people to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for Women to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for a Black person and a White person to marry each other in the U.S.. Okay. Now at one point in Colorado it was legal for a Man to marry his Donkey. It was. Look it up. Laws have to change and adapt in the U.S. to be inclusive and for us to be able to call ourselves a nation that espouses freedom.

Now in this 'progressive' nation where we now have a Black President and many Women holding powerful positions in Government, one would think that denying rights to a minority group and attempting to create yet another second class citizenry would be a thing of the past. Especially with as hard won as gaining rights was for both of those two groups. And any Black person or Woman who voted for Prop 8 in California is a hypocrite who obviously feel that rights for themselves are fine, but not for others.

Considering that Federal and State benefits are gained from 'marriage' it should likely be thus – instead of a marriage it should be a federal contract between two (or more) consenting adults, presided over by a Justice of the Peace. Yes I did say 'or more'. This should be a legally binding contract and federally united people should have to carry the responsibilities inherent with that union if they are to receive any benefits from that union. Meaning if a man wants 15 wives he should be legally and financially responsible to each of them and any children they create. And as it's consenting on all sides that means all the other 'wives' should be consenting to the union and their signatures required by law.

Now wait – I said 'union' not 'marriage'. This is why – the religious ideal of 'marriage' is obviously colouring way too many people's ideas here. And it's been said that government should be taken out of marriage – fine then, religion should be taken out of contracts that grant federal and/or state benefits. And frankly a 'marriage' performed by a priest, pastor, rabbi etc. should not be considered a FEDERALLY binding contracted union. It's a religious ceremony and does not and should not guarantee state or federal benefits. Which means people married by their church should not be gaining state or federal benefits.

Federal and State benefits are the real issue here. Because Gay people not being able to 'marry' means they are not allowed these benefits which should be allowed to any citizen of the United States as granted by the Laws that govern in it. But wait, Gay people pay taxes do they not? Yes they do, if they are Law abiding citizens, they most certainly do. So do they not deserve the same rights that are granted every other law abiding, tax paying United States citizen? Yes they do, or else they should be granted special dispensation from paying equal taxes as they are not granted equal rights.

Nice second post. My name is Buffy and I approve this message.

Welcome to NSG, Saucy Tarts. Try not to have your soul eaten in the first week.

[Vervaria]

Okay … my 2 cents, because 2 cents is really what any of us really get in the grand scheme of things …

We all know that at one time it was illegal for Black people to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for Women to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for a Black person and a White person to marry each other in the U.S.. Okay. Now at one point in Colorado it was legal for a Man to marry his Donkey. It was. Look it up. Laws have to change and adapt in the U.S. to be inclusive and for us to be able to call ourselves a nation that espouses freedom.

Now in this 'progressive' nation where we now have a Black President and many Women holding powerful positions in Government, one would think that denying rights to a minority group and attempting to create yet another second class citizenry would be a thing of the past. Especially with as hard won as gaining rights was for both of those two groups. And any Black person or Woman who voted for Prop 8 in California is a hypocrite who obviously feel that rights for themselves are fine, but not for others.

Considering that Federal and State benefits are gained from 'marriage' it should likely be thus – instead of a marriage it should be a federal contract between two (or more) consenting adults, presided over by a Justice of the Peace. Yes I did say 'or more'. This should be a legally binding contract and federally united people should have to carry the responsibilities inherent with that union if they are to receive any benefits from that union. Meaning if a man wants 15 wives he should be legally and financially responsible to each of them and any children they create. And as it's consenting on all sides that means all the other 'wives' should be consenting to the union and their signatures required by law.

Now wait – I said 'union' not 'marriage'. This is why – the religious ideal of 'marriage' is obviously colouring way too many people's ideas here. And it's been said that government should be taken out of marriage – fine then, religion should be taken out of contracts that grant federal and/or state benefits. And frankly a 'marriage' performed by a priest, pastor, rabbi etc. should not be considered a FEDERALLY binding contracted union. It's a religious ceremony and does not and should not guarantee state or federal benefits. Which means people married by their church should not be gaining state or federal benefits.

Federal and State benefits are the real issue here. Because Gay people not being able to 'marry' means they are not allowed these benefits which should be allowed to any citizen of the United States as granted by the Laws that govern in it. But wait, Gay people pay taxes do they not? Yes they do, if they are Law abiding citizens, they most certainly do. So do they not deserve the same rights that are granted every other law abiding, tax paying United States citizen? Yes they do, or else they should be granted special dispensation from paying equal taxes as they are not granted equal rights.

Nice second post. My name is Buffy and I approve this message.

Welcome to NSG, Saucy Tarts. Try not to have your soul eaten in the first week.

Didn't LG have to lay off soul eating because of the calories anyway?

[Meroivinge]

Winnig at this level might as well not have counted as a win at all. It was guarenteed to be apealled either way. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. And at least at this point in time the Prop 8 opposers will probably loose. In fact I doubt it will even be 5-4. in a few years from now maybe they will win at the Supreme Court. If they loose now (well 2011 or 2012) the Prop 8 opposers will just have to wait until a more liberal SCOTUS before they win at the final desination. With a court a conservative as ever, even if they got the law branded unconstitutional at every other level, they'll lose in the SCOTUS.

I've read the whole decision, and it really seems to me to be in line with the decisions made in Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas (Particularly Justice O'Connor's Concordance), and the very recent Christian Legal Society V. Martinez. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Romer V. Evans, and Walker's decision with its heavy reliance on factual data seems almost designed to appeal to Kennedy. I'm pretty sure of how Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito will decide on this issue. But I think there is a very good chance that Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg may decide to uphold this decision.

I have no clue how newly minted Justice Kagan will rule, but her decision to ban military promoters at Harvard due to the prohibitions of gays certainly seems favorable.

I am cautiously optimistic.

[The Resurgent Dream]

Winnig at this level might as well not have counted as a win at all. It was guarenteed to be apealled either way. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. And at least at this point in time the Prop 8 opposers will probably loose. In fact I doubt it will even be 5-4. in a few years from now maybe they will win at the Supreme Court. If they loose now (well 2011 or 2012) the Prop 8 opposers will just have to wait until a more liberal SCOTUS before they win at the final desination. With a court a conservative as ever, even if they got the law branded unconstitutional at every other level, they'll lose in the SCOTUS.

I've read the whole decision, and it really seems to me to be in line with the decisions made in Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas (Particularly Justice O'Connor's Concordance), and the very recent Christian Legal Society V. Martinez. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Romer V. Evans, and Walker's decision with its heavy reliance on factual data seems almost designed to appeal to Kennedy. I'm pretty sure of how Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito will decide on this issue. But I think there is a very good chance that Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg may decide to uphold this decision.

I have no clue how newly minted Justice Kagan will rule, but her decision to ban military promoters at Harvard due to the prohibitions of gays certainly seems favorable.

I am cautiously optimistic.

Cautious optimism is good. Lawrence, of course, had Due Process and Equal Protection elements and is generally seen as more of a Due Process Case. Romer is more interesting. There, the Court held that the law, which explicitly forbade any laws, ordinances, or agency policies forbidding discrimination against gays and lesbians, was a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because it specifically removed a group of people from the protection of the law. However, the state was not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to actively adopt any anti-discrimination policies. Proposition 8 might be a similar case, a law passed for the purpose of discriminating. If that's the case, it might be unconstitutional to ban gay marriage but constitutional to simply not allow it. Such a result might be a bit of a Pyrric victory but at least it would protect gay marriage where it already exists.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Winnig at this level might as well not have counted as a win at all. It was guarenteed to be apealled either way. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. And at least at this point in time the Prop 8 opposers will probably loose. In fact I doubt it will even be 5-4. in a few years from now maybe they will win at the Supreme Court. If they loose now (well 2011 or 2012) the Prop 8 opposers will just have to wait until a more liberal SCOTUS before they win at the final desination. With a court a conservative as ever, even if they got the law branded unconstitutional at every other level, they'll lose in the SCOTUS.

I've read the whole decision, and it really seems to me to be in line with the decisions made in Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas (Particularly Justice O'Connor's Concordance), and the very recent Christian Legal Society V. Martinez. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Romer V. Evans, and Walker's decision with its heavy reliance on factual data seems almost designed to appeal to Kennedy. I'm pretty sure of how Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito will decide on this issue. But I think there is a very good chance that Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg may decide to uphold this decision.

I have no clue how newly minted Justice Kagan will rule, but her decision to ban military promoters at Harvard due to the prohibitions of gays certainly seems favorable.

I am cautiously optimistic.

Cautious optimism is good. Lawrence, of course, had Due Process and Equal Protection elements and is generally seen as more of a Due Process Case. Romer is more interesting. There, the Court held that the law, which explicitly forbade any laws, ordinances, or agency policies forbidding discrimination against gays and lesbians, was a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because it specifically removed a group of people from the protection of the law. However, the state was not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to actively adopt any anti-discrimination policies. Proposition 8 might be a similar case, a law passed for the purpose of discriminating. If that's the case, it might be unconstitutional to ban gay marriage but constitutional to simply not allow it. Such a result might be a bit of a Pyrric victory but at least it would protect gay marriage where it already exists.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend
XIV, § 1. Equal protection is “a pledge of the protection of equal
laws.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 369 (1886). The guarantee
of equal protection coexists, of course, with the reality that most
legislation must classify for some purpose or another. See Romer v
Evans, 517 US 620, 631 (1996). When a law creates a classification
but neither targets a suspect class nor burdens a fundamental
right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it as
long as it is rationally related to some legitimate government
interest. See, for example, Heller v Doe, 509 US 312, 319-320
(1993).

[Tmutarakhan]

and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could create a contract that would create identical protections to that of marriage
I'm sure they would be able to standardize such a form
and I'm sure the courts would find it enforceable

In Michigan it is specifically forbidden for courts to enforce any kind of arrangement that is "similar to" marriage, if not between a man and a woman. Joint health insurance is the only kind of contract that has actually been voided on those grounds, but there is a terrible ambiguity about what contracts, which would be legal if entered into by anyone else, will be voided if two of us make them. The "good Christians" have written similar language into the state constitutions of Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia, but the Michigan supreme court is the one that has gone furthest with interpreting the language.

[Meroivinge]

and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could create a contract that would create identical protections to that of marriage
I'm sure they would be able to standardize such a form
and I'm sure the courts would find it enforceable

In Michigan it is specifically forbidden for courts to enforce any kind of arrangement that is "similar to" marriage, if not between a man and a woman. Joint health insurance is the only kind of contract that has actually been voided on those grounds, but there is a terrible ambiguity about what contracts, which would be legal if entered into by anyone else, will be voided if two of us make them. The "good Christians" have written similar language into the state constitutions of Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia, but the Michigan supreme court is the one that has gone furthest with interpreting the language.

California actual has an arrangement that is almost entirely equivalent to marriage in rights and privileges. But the court ruled that:
"The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples."

[DrVenkman]

Very good ruling.

[Buffett and Colbert]

and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could create a contract that would create identical protections to that of marriage
I'm sure they would be able to standardize such a form
and I'm sure the courts would find it enforceable

In Michigan it is specifically forbidden for courts to enforce any kind of arrangement that is "similar to" marriage, if not between a man and a woman. Joint health insurance is the only kind of contract that has actually been voided on those grounds, but there is a terrible ambiguity about what contracts, which would be legal if entered into by anyone else, will be voided if two of us make them. The "good Christians" have written similar language into the state constitutions of Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia, but the Michigan supreme court is the one that has gone furthest with interpreting the language.

California actual has an arrangement that is almost entirely equivalent to marriage in rights and privileges. But the court ruled that:
"The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples."

It was also revealed that domestic partnerships do not provide the same economic benefits as marriage does and generally discriminates, by adding to the negative stigma that homosexuals receive.

[DaWoad]

Okay … my 2 cents, because 2 cents is really what any of us really get in the grand scheme of things …

We all know that at one time it was illegal for Black people to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for Women to vote in the U.S., we all know that at one time it was illegal for a Black person and a White person to marry each other in the U.S.. Okay. Now at one point in Colorado it was legal for a Man to marry his Donkey. It was. Look it up. Laws have to change and adapt in the U.S. to be inclusive and for us to be able to call ourselves a nation that espouses freedom.

Now in this 'progressive' nation where we now have a Black President and many Women holding powerful positions in Government, one would think that denying rights to a minority group and attempting to create yet another second class citizenry would be a thing of the past. Especially with as hard won as gaining rights was for both of those two groups. And any Black person or Woman who voted for Prop 8 in California is a hypocrite who obviously feel that rights for themselves are fine, but not for others.

Considering that Federal and State benefits are gained from 'marriage' it should likely be thus – instead of a marriage it should be a federal contract between two (or more) consenting adults, presided over by a Justice of the Peace. Yes I did say 'or more'. This should be a legally binding contract and federally united people should have to carry the responsibilities inherent with that union if they are to receive any benefits from that union. Meaning if a man wants 15 wives he should be legally and financially responsible to each of them and any children they create. And as it's consenting on all sides that means all the other 'wives' should be consenting to the union and their signatures required by law.

Now wait – I said 'union' not 'marriage'. This is why – the religious ideal of 'marriage' is obviously colouring way too many people's ideas here. And it's been said that government should be taken out of marriage – fine then, religion should be taken out of contracts that grant federal and/or state benefits. And frankly a 'marriage' performed by a priest, pastor, rabbi etc. should not be considered a FEDERALLY binding contracted union. It's a religious ceremony and does not and should not guarantee state or federal benefits. Which means people married by their church should not be gaining state or federal benefits.

Federal and State benefits are the real issue here. Because Gay people not being able to 'marry' means they are not allowed these benefits which should be allowed to any citizen of the United States as granted by the Laws that govern in it. But wait, Gay people pay taxes do they not? Yes they do, if they are Law abiding citizens, they most certainly do. So do they not deserve the same rights that are granted every other law abiding, tax paying United States citizen? Yes they do, or else they should be granted special dispensation from paying equal taxes as they are not granted equal rights.

Nice second post. My name is Buffy and I approve this message.

Welcome to NSG, Saucy Tarts. Try not to have your soul eaten in the first week.

Didn't LG have to lay off soul eating because of the calories anyway?

Well you know how LG is with diets, I think he's sworn off tacos at least 34 times by now. I expect the soul eating diets already been broken too

*push you in mud*

[New Chalcedon]

Winnig at this level might as well not have counted as a win at all. It was guarenteed to be apealled either way. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. And at least at this point in time the Prop 8 opposers will probably loose. In fact I doubt it will even be 5-4. in a few years from now maybe they will win at the Supreme Court. If they loose now (well 2011 or 2012) the Prop 8 opposers will just have to wait until a more liberal SCOTUS before they win at the final desination. With a court a conservative as ever, even if they got the law branded unconstitutional at every other level, they'll lose in the SCOTUS.

Please explain how they'll lose in the Supreme Court. The judge in this case appears to have purposely used a lower test of validity for the law than should be applied, and even under that, it failed. The supporters of Proposition 8 cannot demonstrate how the State of California (or by extension, any state) has a real, compelling interest in forbidding same-sex marriage. What harm does same-sex marriage do that it requires legislation to ensure that it does not happen? Real harm, not making Baby Jesus cry (which can be ameliorated by Grown-Up Jesus wiping his tears and giving him a toy to play with).

I can give you five reasons: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts. They showed, in Citizens United, that it doesn't matter to them what arguments are presented: they'll vote their ideology over the law (and, more importantly, the Constitution) every single time. And all five are of the school of thought that those icky gheyz shouldn't be allowed to have teh marraigez.

Scalia was a dissent from Lawrence v. Texas. Roberts worked pro bono (for free) to attack a Colorado constitutional amendment which would have prohibited discrimination (Romer v. Evans). Thomas dissented from Lawrence v. Texas, saying (distilled version here) that Gay rights had nothing to do with the Constitution. Alito claimed when in private practice that employers had the right to fire HIV+ employees due to any fear, reasonable or unreasonable, of contagion. Kennedy, while he authored Lawrence v. Texas, he also voted to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organisation right to bar gay people from joining in 2000, and thus is very unlikely to allow a "constitutional right" to same-sex marriage.

At worst, they'll find that marriage is not a right protected or given absolutely by the Constitution, and that the 14th Amendment applies only to race relations. In the middle, they'll strike down Prop.8 on a technicality, leaving the question open for a revival of it or a later (and even more reich-wing, dominionist and theocratically-inclined) SCOTUS to review in another State. The very best scenario, also the most unlikely, is that they'll actually strike down the ban on same-sex marriage across America as unconstitutional. There's no Loving v. Virginia here, folks - the SCOTUS is even more conservative now than it was then

Gays of Aerica: Thank George W. Bush that you're going to continue to be second-class citizens. Much like I am in Australia....

[Tmutarakhan]

and I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could create a contract that would create identical protections to that of marriage
I'm sure they would be able to standardize such a form
and I'm sure the courts would find it enforceable

In Michigan it is specifically forbidden for courts to enforce any kind of arrangement that is "similar to" marriage, if not between a man and a woman. Joint health insurance is the only kind of contract that has actually been voided on those grounds, but there is a terrible ambiguity about what contracts, which would be legal if entered into by anyone else, will be voided if two of us make them. The "good Christians" have written similar language into the state constitutions of Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia, but the Michigan supreme court is the one that has gone furthest with interpreting the language.

California actual has an arrangement that is almost entirely equivalent to marriage in rights and privileges. But the court ruled that:
"The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples."

It was also revealed that domestic partnerships do not provide the same economic benefits as marriage does and generally discriminates, by adding to the negative stigma that homosexuals receive.

The main problem is that the rights do not travel. If you move to another state, or just go on vacation, what good is it that the person in the hospital is your "California domestic partner"?

[Arkinesia]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

ZOMFG, YOU GUISE, TEH TAX MONSTAH'S GONNA GIT US!!!

Considering government services in the US, taxes are pretty goddamn high.