http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010...ts-victory

A federal judge in California has ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights for all Americans.

The opinion, issued Wednesday afternoon by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, scuttles the state’s “Proposition 8,” a state Constitutional amendment barring such unions. The so-called “Prop 8” was approved by California voters in 2008, just months after state legislators legalized same-sex marriage – prompting more than 18,000 couples to converge on city halls across the state to marry.

In his ruling, Vaughn wrote that the Proposition 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates and irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.


He said the amendment, approved by 52 percent of Californians who voted in November 2008, “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

“Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” he wrote.

And Vaughn, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, drew on history in defending the right of same-sex couples to legalize their committed relationships: Such relationships, he said, “are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.”

The ban was upheld last year by California’s Supreme Court, whose decision was subsequently appealed by gay marriage advocates. The trial was held earlier this year, and featured high-powered lawyers Theodore Olson, a conservative and former U.S. solicitor general, and David Boies, who represented then-presidential candidate Al Gore during the high court dispute over the 2000 presidential election results, joining forces to argue in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Walker’s decision marks the beginning of yet another chapter in the ongoing war over whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights and protections for Americans extends to same-sex couples seeking to legalize their unions.

His opinion is expected be appealed — and even before it was issued, those supporting the marriage ban asked that his decision be stayed if he found the unconstitutional. It appears inevitable that the issue will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There, justices would be asked to decide a civil rights question that states have been struggling with mightily -– and with increasing vigor — since Vermont broke new ground in 2000, by approving same-sex civil unions.

Since then, the District of Columbia and five states, including Vermont, have approved measures giving same-sex couples the right to receive marriage licenses. The other states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

Walker's decision comes in the wake of another dramatic opinion out of federal court in Boston. There, Judge Joseph Tauro found unconstitutional a 1996 federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.

Tauro ruled that the DOMA improperly meddles with states' traditionally exclusive right to regulate marriage. Activists are watching to see if — or when — the Department of Justice, tasked with defending federal law, will appeal.

Americans have shown consistent and growing support for the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed said they support the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 25 percent supporting their right to civil unions.

That poll, and others like it, found that opposition to same-sex marriage is strongest among older Americans who identify themselves as conservatives.

So marriage is now a "fundamental right".

How nice of the judges to let us know.

.................

Whatever happens or doesn't happen from here on out, the Walker- and Tauro-decisions certainly drop the lie on all those people who claimed that marriage-amendments to the various state constitutions were "unnecessary" because the courts coud be trusted not to "judicialize" this issue.

it's a good ruling. but i'm going to say that under a different thought.

homosexual marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage. there are no slight changes in legality just because two people are the same gender. by banning one group of people from getting married, it violates the equal protection clause of the federal constitution which trumps state constitutions. you can't argue civil unions should suffice because then you are getting into "separate but equal" territory. jim crow anybody?

its a ruling any conservative should be proud of, because as a strict constitutional definition, homosexual couples were being denied the equal right of marrying someone of their choosing that heterosexual couples enjoyed. it also gets the government out of the lives of people. and i thought that conservatives favored smaller government? anyone, especially so-called conservatives who don't favor this ruling are not conservatives. you are nothing but a bunch of big government liberals who favor judicial activism to further your own moral agenda onto people who do not share your morality. there was NO reason for homosexuals to be denied the equal opportunity to get married or divorced other than the fact that it offended your vengeful jealous invisible sky daddy that some people don't pay any attention to.

i hope that this ruling leads to a domino effect that will get similar acts passed across the country in the height of the 2004 scare tactic known as the bush re-election campaign tossed out as well.

The entire gay marriage issue started over insurance. Married couples get much better rates than individuals...

(08-04-2010 08:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The entire gay marriage issue started over insurance. Married couples get much better rates than individuals...

yet another reason why we should have universal healthcare.

In the history of the United States, we have always expanded the rights of the people. At first it was blacks didn't vote or get married and we now alow them to get married and vote. Same thing for women.

(08-05-2010 12:57 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  In the history of the United States, we have always expanded the rights of the people. At first it was blacks didn't vote or get married and we now alow them to get married and vote. Same thing for women.

Actually, the entire history of the United States consists of removing the restrictions on the rights of those peoples we have oppressed throughout our history. And even after restrictions have been removed, the oppressed are still made to feel like 2nd class citizens. That's our real history...

Personally, I'm all for preserving traditional marriage with all its polygamy and concubine wonderfulness. After all, many ancient societies allowed men to marry multiple women as well as concubines. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had hordes of wives and concubines. Now that is traditional marriage I could get behind.

I'd like to point out that holding other human beings as slaves was a traditional practice in most parts of the world until the 1800s. Why overturn centuries of human tradition just because some people want to be treated as equals? Also, why do when have the right to vote or hold public office? I mean, one could argue that the traditional role of women as been as the "seen not heard" homemaker. Maybe we should strip women of their equality and put them back in their role in society?

I always say; "There are no good guys. There are only bad guys. It's just that some of 'em are on different sides"...

I for one see no harm in allowing gays and lesbians the right to marriage. They live together, most likley have a joint bank account the whole 9 as is it. So whats wrong with them having that right.

Now onto the ruling. For one this is a States Rights issue. A Federal Judge had no right ruling on this case to begin with. I'd feel the same way if this was passed in lets say Georgia and a Religious Federal Judge overturned the bill. The people of California spoken. Its we the people's country. In 5-10 years the people of California would eventually favor gay marriage anyways. Its time for the Feds to "BUTT OUT OF THE STATES BUSINESS".

(08-05-2010 01:06 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  Personally, I'm all for preserving traditional marriage with all its polygamy and concubine wonderfulness. After all, many ancient societies allowed men to marry multiple women as well as concubines. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had hordes of wives and concubines. Now that is traditional marriage I could get behind.

I suspect that a lot of the people who have suddenly started voicing their approval of polygamy in the past few years are insincere. But however that may be, the underlying concept -- that everyone has the "right" to define "marriage" for themselves, and to have that self-definition recognized and upheld by the state and society-at-large -- is well on its way to being implemented in European + American law and custom. This represents a radical shift from all of recorded history and experience (up until approximately 10 years ago), and its advocates, IMO, have no idea of what destructive force will be unleashed by it. But they are bound and determined to make sure that everyone finds out, whether we want to or not.

Quote:I'd like to point out that holding other human beings as slaves was a traditional practice in most parts of the world until the 1800s.

And in some parts of the world, even to this day.

Quote:Why overturn centuries of human tradition just because some people want to be treated as equals?

Do you really think that's the reason (or even one of the main reasons) slavery was abolished (in the places where it has been abolished)? Seriously?

.....

One of the benefits of living in a self-governing republic with First-Amendment-type liberties is that, as time goes by, citizens are free to argue and re-argue the wisdom and justice of their laws, and perhaps, over time, come to the conclusion that some of them (or all of them) ought to be changed. Such a republic cannot endure when a single judge can declare his personal views to be immune to the democratic process, and effectively write them into the basic law, as Vaughn Walker purported to do a few days ago in his courtroom in San Francisco. I would think, even for people who approve of "gay marriage," the dangers of such declarations should be clear. But if they aren't clear by now, they probably never will be.

Native Georgian... I might be wrong but I caught alot of sarcasm out of UofL's post.

Heh.
I noticed it, too.

But the sarcasm had a serious point, and that's what I was mostly responding to.

so i guess for those who want to argue "state's rights" that the states have the right to re-legalize slavery or deny women and black people the right to vote.

the supreme court ruled a very long time ago that federal law and the federal constitution trump state law and state constitutions every time.

what proposition 8 did and what it stands for in its general terms is that a majority can enforce its views on a minority by popular vote. it would be like forcing everyone to watch the nfl every week and outlawing the nhl even though there are a lot of people who don't like the nfl and who are passionate about hockey. the bill of rights was included to protect the rights of the minority against they tyranny of the majority and to make sure of that, the 14th amendment was passed to make explicitly clear of this.

listen, if you don't want gay marriage DON'T HAVE ONE. but that does not mean that you have the right to tell other people not to have one. there isn't anything illegal about it and it does not hurt any existing marriages either.

Listen... I said I have no problem with gay marriage. Read everything I said.

This is not the sort of debate that becomes more civil as it goes along. I think a lot of people (regardless of point of view) would agree with that, and at least in my case, that is the main reason my I have commented very little on this subject. And I don't intend to break that habit.

But I have just got to say that post #14 by "ctkatz" is one of the most hysterical/irrational/sub-moronic bits of nonsense yet seen on this website.

That's all.

I know. It was just apparent he didn't read the part where I said what if Georgia would pass a gay rights law and a Fed Judge would deem it unconsitutional. The Nation in itself will be in outrage over that decision. Instead of Gay Marriage being passed state by state its going to the Supreme Court eventually which is a shame.

I think people should stay the hell out of other people's business. Anyone promoting legislation to control how people live should be shot, IMO. The ones who make the most noise are those without a life. I guess they feel if they don't have a life, nobody else should either...

Regardless of opinions of same sex marriage, this is a terrible ruling. How in the hell can it be argued that the Constitution was in anyway intended to force states to allow same sex marriage?

I'm for civil unions (with the same rights as marriage) and may even be open to calling them marriages outright, but the court had no more right to rule this way than the Queen of England would have had to make this ruling. It was one court overruling the will of the people of a state with no Constitutional backing. This centralization of power is eating into everyone's rights regardless of how they feel about the morality of any individual decision. I fear for this country. A republic is not something we are guaranteed and we are at a real risk of losing it.

(08-10-2010 04:06 PM)ctkatz Wrote:  so i guess for those who want to argue "state's rights" that the states have the right to re-legalize slavery or deny women and black people the right to vote.

the supreme court ruled a very long time ago that federal law and the federal constitution trump state law and state constitutions every time.

what proposition 8 did and what it stands for in its general terms is that a majority can enforce its views on a minority by popular vote. it would be like forcing everyone to watch the nfl every week and outlawing the nhl even though there are a lot of people who don't like the nfl and who are passionate about hockey. the bill of rights was included to protect the rights of the minority against they tyranny of the majority and to make sure of that, the 14th amendment was passed to make explicitly clear of this.

listen, if you don't want gay marriage DON'T HAVE ONE. but that does not mean that you have the right to tell other people not to have one. there isn't anything illegal about it and it does not hurt any existing marriages either.

The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it cannot be made to say anything a judge wants it to say. If you let that happen, you are quite literally ending the republic, ending democracy.

To interpret the Constitution, you have to look at what the writers and people of the time generally thought about what they were writing down. That doesn't mean there isn't leeway sometimes as thing are unclear, but if we are a nation of laws (something the Founders heavily emphasized), then we need to use what that the supreme law of the land was actually supposed to mean. This doesn't mean we don't look at modern issues, but we still interpret the Constitution through what was meant at the time of its writing (or the amendments writing). If we want to change it, there are set ways to do that even if they are difficult.

The Constitution is quite clear that where the power isn't given to the federal government, the states remain supreme. This federal division has benefits and drawbacks, but it is crystal clear in the Constitution. There is no way anyone could look at the Constitution from a historic perspective and argue it was in anyway intended to force states to recognize same sex marriage.