Proposition 8: Ruling excerpts from U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Los Angeles Times:

Excerpts from the federal court ruling striking down Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that banned gay marriage in California.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's conclusion:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

On the overturning of Proposition 8:

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result ...

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently ... prohibiting the official defendants [state of California] from applying or enforcing Proposition 8..."
________

As someone who could care less about who wants to marry whom, I do think this was a discrimination issue, and that the supporters of Prop 8 were acting out of religious opposition to gay marriage, not sound legal arguments. That aside, I really wish this sort of thing was carried through the state legislature by popular vote first. If it's a bad idea (as I think Prop 8 was) then people could have voted to overturn it.

As it now stands, the Surpremes will probably side with the judge on this one.

[Sabre86]

So what are you going to say when this leads to churches being sued for discrimination because they refuse to marry the queers and people being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality?

 

I guess you'll think that is okay because you want everything to be "fair" so anyone who does not support the sodomites should be silenced.

 

This is not about "marriage," it is about homosexuals' ultimate goal of eradicating any religion who opposes them.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Sabre86, with all due respect, that's the sort of reaction that does little to help the anti-gay marriage cause. If there's a valid legal case to be made against recognizing gay marriage as opposed to civil unions, and it's used to strike down the judge's decision in the Supreme Court, then I have no problem with that. Like I said, let people vote on it first next time. But this business of equating gays with sodomy helps nobody (unless you want to include those gays who are serving in the military-some of whom have been wounded in combat?)

 

Or do you want conservatives to look like paranoid fundamentalist bigots?

[spikeytx86]

So what are you going to say when this leads to churches being sued for discrimination because they refuse to marry the queers and people being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality?

 

I guess you'll think that is okay because you want everything to be "fair" so anyone who does not support the sodomites should be silenced.

 

This is not about "marriage," it is about homosexuals' ultimate goal of eradicating any religion who opposes them.

 

What in this ruling compels Churches to recognize and perform Gay Marriages?

 

Here is a link to the Judges "Finding of Fact". Below is an applicable excerpt.

 

•Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

 

So just like the Catholic Church is not forced to marry Protestants and Jews are not forced to marry Christians, Churches will not be compelled to marry Gays and Lesbians.

[Sabre86]

I never said this ruling did, but that is the next step after homosexual "marriage" is forced on the nation by judicial fiat. Just read the garbage written by the activists who are behind these lawsuits. Their next phase is to sue churches for discrimination and/or get their tax exempt status revoked as well as criminalize any criticism of their deviance as "hate speech."

 

You don't think it can't happen here? Ask the Jews if they thought it couldn't happen to them. History repeats itself again and again, and we're heading for a disaster.

 

If nothing else bothers you, the line in the ruling which says the will and votes of the people are "irreverent" should scare the sh*t out of you.

[spikeytx86]

I never said this ruling did, but that is the next step after homosexual "marriage" is forced on the nation by judicial fiat. Just read the garbage written by the activists who are behind these lawsuits. Their next phase is to sue churches for discrimination and/or get their tax exempt status revoked as well as criminalize any criticism of their deviance as "hate speech."

 

You don't think it can't happen here? Ask the Jews if they thought it couldn't happen to them. History repeats itself again and again, and we're heading for a disaster.

 

If nothing else bothers you, the line in the ruling which says the will and votes of the people are "irreverent" should scare the sh*t out of you.

 

If nothing else bothers you, the line in the ruling which says the will and votes of the people are "irreverent" should scare the sh*t out of you.

 

Here is the excerpted quote:

 

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” ...

 

This isn't really earth shattering. Fundamental rights are not subject to the whims of voters in any given election. Nor should it be. Now you may argue that Gays do not have a fundamental right to marry each other, legitimate argument, but in this case the Judge ruled that they do, and thus voters can't deny it anymore than a state could have a vote to ban and confiscate all privately held fire arms.

 

And this section actually would protect you from your fear that someday it will be illegal to speak out against homosexuality. We have a fundamental right to free speech, guaranteed by the first amendment and thus no voter or popular election could ever change that.

[Argyle58]

Perhaps conservatives would be willing to give more on this issue if it weren't for the fact that the entire heterosexual, conservative, working class lifestyle is under constant attack, and yet remains the backbone.... morally, ethically and fically.....of the country. Every once in awhile, while under unceasing assault, you feel the need to make a stand, if for no other reason, sheer frustration.

 

This decision makes a mockery of literally thousands of years of tradition...cultural, legal and religious tradition.....that are shared in common directly by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and most other faith based cultures. Those three religions represent on the order of 95% of the population. They want their dignity and culture to be respected.

 

The tradition of marraige being between a man and a woman is defined in the earliest writing of virtually every culture that ever developed a written language, even in those cultures who openly tolerated, even embraced, homosexuality as part of day to day life.

 

Sorry, this is a bad decision, made at a bad time, and will only add fuel to the fire that is already smoldering.

[SrWoodchuck]

If we accept that our reproductive equipment is naturally made for......reproduction, and every other use is just grins & giggles; then homosexuality goes against a basic, human natural law. Times change, but instinct & our basic mores remain.

 

Jewish dietary laws had a foundation in common sense food prep & good health practice, but with refrigeration & better animal husbandry, are hardly practical today.

 

I don't really care what homosexuals do with each other, everyone is entitled to a little love & happiness; but I don't care for the idea of overturning a proposition, that was twice voted in by popular vote.

 

My other observation is that homosexuals don't just want acceptance under the law; they want to force our approval.

[Pepper]

"My other observation is that homosexuals don't just want acceptance under the law; they want to force our approval." -- SrWoodChuc

 

I agree with SrWoodChuck.

 

Homosexuality will become the new skin color. Dissenters will be accused of being Hacists.

 

 

Where are the limits?

 

For those who support the judge's ruling but say there are statutes on the books that prohibit the following -- how do you rationalize the rationale for these prohibitions?

 

A woman wants to marry a 12 year old boy.

A man wants to marry a 12 year old boy.

A man wants to marry his sister.

A woman wants to marry her son.

A man wants to marry his mother and his sister and his son.

 

The predictable end result will be that there will be no limits for any behavior.

 

-- Signed: NOT a "paranoid fundamentalist bigot" as WestVirginiaRebel used but a believer in Reductio Absurdem.

[NCTexan]

Where are the limits?

 

For those who support the judge's ruling but say there are statutes on the books that prohibit the following -- how do you rationalize the rationale for these prohibitions?

 

A woman wants to marry a 12 year old boy.

A man wants to marry a 12 year old boy.

A man wants to marry his sister.

A woman wants to marry her son.

A man wants to marry his mother and his sister and his son.

Pepper!

 

What are the prohibitions?

 

Where does it stop? And what is the outcome?

 

[Pepper]

NCTexan.

 

Eggzakly.