Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[jedi]

The culture war is back.
A federal judge’s ruling Wednesday striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage is a historic and possibly pivotal legal victory for gay rights advocates, but the decision also poses a formidable threat to President Barack Obama’s strategy of relegating divisive social issues to the back burner.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision is just the latest in a series of rulings and high-profile legal challenges drawing public attention to gay rights issues in a sustained way for the first time since San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom grabbed headlines in 2004 by okaying same-sex marriages in that city.

more at the SOURCE: California ruling puts Obama on spot - Yahoo! News

---
Okay so here is my question. The people of CA voted to change their state constitution. Now a federal judge is telling them that what they voted to change is no good.

Was it not that the fed was created for a limited number of items: defense of country, agree to treaties with other countries, etc.. but everything else was up to the states & how they wanted to handle it?

 

[mrjarrell]

If a number of people in a given state voted to ban possessions of all firearms would it be OK? We're not a democracy, the majority does not get to dictate to everyone, especially where rights are concerned. The judge in this case (a Reagan appointee) ruled using the 14th Amendment (as the SCOTUS just did in McDonald) and wrote:

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.

Here's his ruling.

You can't vote to remove rights of people that you don't like. If that were the case then slavery could make a come back and a baptist majority could vote to ban everything they didn't like, no matter what catholics might want. Either we are all equals before the law or we are not. I'll err on the side of total equality. Gay marriages aren't going to make my marriage any less valid.
Even AG Moonbeam got it right when he declined to defend prop. 8

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown praised Wednesday's invalidation of Prop. 8, saying Walker "came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it (as state attorney general): Proposition 8 violates the equal-protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the United States."

Read more: Prop. 8 judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban
​

 

[Denny347]

If a number of people in a given state voted to ban possessions of all firearms would it be OK? We're not a democracy, the majority does not get to dictate to everyone, especially where rights are concerned. The judge in this case (a Reagan appointee) ruled using the 14th Amendment (as the SCOTUS just did in McDonald) and wrote:
Here's his ruling.

You can't vote to remove rights of people that you don't like. If that were the case then slavery could make a come back and a baptist majority could vote to ban everything they didn't like, no matter what catholics might want. Either we are all equals before the law or we are not. I'll err on the side of total equality. Gay marriages aren't going to make my marriage any less valid.
Even AG Moonbeam got it right when he declined to defend prop. 8

Yup, sums it up well.

 

[jedi]

Thanks "mr always posting bad news" I had not thought about it in the way you wrote about it. That does make more sense (to a point). Guess the next question is "marriage" a right we have?

 

[chraland51]

What is next--lowering the age of consent or poligomy??? Some things are actually black or white in the eyes of narrow minded people like me. I have loosened up enough to accept civil unions with property rights and legal rights, but just do not call it a marriage, please.

 

[chraland51]

Majorities rule all of the time. Just look at what the democraps are doing in congress.

 

[Denny347]

Should we really have to get PERMISSION from the government to marry another consenting adult???????

 

[BloodEclipse]

This will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Federal Judge who ruled on this is one of the few openly gay Federal Judges.
The only test the law has to pass is if it is or is not constitutional.
It doesn't matter if voters wanted or not, it has to pass the test of constitutionality.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Should we really have to get PERMISSION from the government to marry another consenting adult???????

Exactly!

 

[ATOMonkey]

IMO, government needs to get all the way out of the marriage business.

 

[Expat]

Should we really have to get PERMISSION from the government to marry another consenting adult???????

We have to get governmental permission to build anything on our own property, put up a sign, start a business, own certain breeds of dogs, start a fire outside... or was yours a rhetorical question?

 

[ATOMonkey]

We have to get governmental permission to build anything on our own property, put up a sign, start a business, own certain breeds of dogs, start a fire outside... or was yours a rhetorical question?

+1

 

[hoosiertriangle]

There are two intertwined issues here. First is the issue of constitutionality of a law defining marriage. Under constitutional law, all that is needed is a rational basis for a law such as Prop 8. Morality is and has continued to be a rationale basis for making laws whether we like it or not. Thus, prop 8 is constitutional. Marriage isn't even an enumerated right like the 2nd Amendment. Thus, rational basis, not strict or intermediate scrutiny is all that is necessary to pass muster. Either Prop 8 should stand or all laws based on morality must fall. Prohibitions against polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, beastiality are all have a basis in morality as their rationale and its the morality of the majority. These prohibitions must also fall if Prop 8 falls. And to be clear, this is not a commentary on my own moral beliefs.

The second issue is whether the government should play a role in determining legitimate marriages, and more importantly, should the gov't be giving benefits for entering a marriage. I don't think the government should be involved in marriages as its a religious thing. Let churches decide who they will marry and who they wont. The sticking point is then, that all the benefits that come from traditional marriage must be stripped. Remove the privileges that come from traditional marriage and the government no longer has a dog in the fight because nobody will care other than those who actually profess to love one another. Then they can find whatever church or institution that agrees with their morality and then get married.

 

[groovatron]

Anyone that claims to believe in personal responsibility and individual rights, should have no problem with homosexual marriage. If you do, then your motives are in question. We can decide the rules that are to be observed under the roof of our own churches and households, but outside of that, true freedom must be recognized and practiced. This includes personal choice.

 

[groovatron]

We have to get governmental permission to build anything on our own property, put up a sign, start a business, own certain breeds of dogs, start a fire outside... or was yours a rhetorical question?

Not all of us. I don't need permission fromt he government to do anything on your list.

 

[88GT]

Should we really have to get PERMISSION from the government to marry another consenting adult???????

No, but if you want the legal benefits of being considered a spouse, you do. I don't necessarily like it, but it does keep your ex-girlfriend from being able to claim with any chance of success part of your estate upon your demise. Without the secular civil union, your "heirs" would have one helluva fight to keep what's theirs. A will would only go so far since it would be nothing for someone to contest it. Testate succession laws depend on legal recognition of spousal (and children) claims, which can only be verified by the state through their process.

A marriage and a secular civil union are two different things. It's just unfortunate the state co-opted the language of the former to the extent that it's created our current "crisis."

 

[ATOMonkey]

There are other issues as well, regarding end of life choices, and visitation, that the current system does not support in regards to homosexuality.

 

[henktermaat]

Minority rules? Yes. In this case, 1 gay activist judge, putting the thoughts of prop 8 supporters on trial; concluding that they were bigoted and considered gays and lesbians as "inferior."

Nothing to stop him from making law on any topic, really.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My understanding is that there are a host of objections to the way this trial was conducted, from the Judge's disregard of centuries of common law definition, to his selective admission of evidence, to his stated assumption that anyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is, by his definition, homophobic.

 

[henktermaat]

My understanding is that there are a host of objections to the way this trial was conducted, from the Judge's disregard of centuries of common law definition, to his selective admission of evidence, to his stated assumption that anyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is, by his definition, homophobic.

Bingo. Thought police are at the door.