Why Prop. 8 will be overturned

[DonnaT]

PDF of ruling

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv ... -ORDER.pdf

[SilverLady(SO)]

Carolynn had originally written, in a now-deleted thread (deleted at her request due to duplicate topic), the following:

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: Prop 8 WAS overturned

SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

In a landmark case that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

The judge added in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/38560562/ns/us ... ?gt1-43001


Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:03 pm

OK, though this was a news story, Donna's PDF link came first. Mods, wanna delete this?

Thread deleted, but I've copied your posts first.


- SL

[DanteCarrie (FTM)]

YAY it was overruled for now it said before its sorted it'll be 2012 cas oppossers of same sex marriage will try to appeal for it to be reopened or something

[Anita]

Interesting that the Prop. 8 people were arguing that the constitution only supports "traditional" marriage. My girlfriend has been researching the matter, and according to her, the right to marry is not in the constitution, period. Basically, try finding a definition of ANY kind of marriage in the document, or even the term 'marriage.'

[Michelle Miller]

YAY it was overruled for now it said before its sorted it'll be 2012 cas oppossers of same sex marriage will try to appeal for it to be reopened or something

I dunno, with the wording the judge used on the ruling, it's going to be pretty tough to argue on the side of discrimination & oppression through the fist of an angry god...but hey, it hasn't stopped the wackos yet.

[Elizabeth]

Hi DonnaT,

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

I was correct about it getting overturned and I was correct on what grounds it would be overturned, however I never thought it would not make it to Federal Court, other than on appeal.

The case they made is so weak, I can't imagine on what grounds the Supreme Court might overturn the lower court ruling. Not that they need a rational reason. As we have seen in past rulings, this Court could care less about precedent or what the Constitution says.(See Citizens United decision, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... cotus.html). So it is all going to come down to how Anthony Kennedy votes.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[DonnaT]

Article about the appeal

http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-marriage ... als-court/

[Alizee_Noelle]

Latest developments: Schwartzenegger is pro: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EQGH7.DTL

[Davita]

I actually talked about the issue of marriage vs civil union a while back on my web site. This stuff will take what ever time it takes and it will be right when everyone finally gets done trying to be righteous.

http://davita-farley.webs.com/reference/civil_union.txt

[Michelle Miller]

Not that they need a rational reason.

I've often wondered what kind of mindset it takes to rationalize oppression through ones' forcing religious values upon those not part of said cult via laws that the sheep have helped to vote through.

Honestly, I can't imagine it...I think it's the same as "Keep them darkies at the back of the bus/out of our schools/off our water fountains", but in the same vein, I don't see it as a color/class thing either, I see it as one bunch forcing their will on another, and that manure's gone on long enough.

[Kimberly Kael]

I've often wondered what kind of mindset it takes to rationalize oppression through ones' forcing religious values upon those not part of said cult via laws that the sheep have helped to vote through.

Really? It's actually pretty hard to tell the difference between majority consensus on morality and what actually constitutes the good of the state.

Is being anti-murder a part of a cult moral code, or is there actually an objective reason to be against it in a world that is so overpopulated that people routinely starve to death? Why can I buy and eat chickens, but not cats or dogs in our culture? Why isn't circumcision considered child abuse? What is wrong with polygamy? Incest has unfortunate consequences for offspring, but isn't gay incest free of those particular consequences? A lot of positions our society takes result from a collective position that we've taken that could just as easily have gone a different direction and still make complete sense.

I don't actually blame the individuals who have been taught these beliefs. I blame their leaders who have had to face clear evidence to the contrary and still persist in spreading misinformation.

[Absaroka]

Kimberly that is a very thought provoking post.

I'd say that some sort of morality is neccesary. I've always liked the "do unto others" as a foundation for that morality. But there are other factors as well, one of them being the well being of society itself. It can and will be debated endlessly what constitutes the well being of society and is it enabling the individuals in it to flourish.

I'm mostly familiar with the moral strictures of Judaism/Christianity. I've alway thought it interesting how some of the laws served a purpose. For example the ruling that you may harvest your field, and return once for a gleaning before the next harvest and no more. The rest must be left for the poor and the animals. A law that made good sense, and that was where the morality of it was derived from.

Zari

[DonnaT]

Article about the appeal

http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-marri...appeals-court/

Recent events: the governor and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown were ordered to offer briefs Wednesday explaining why they have not filed an appeal.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...nse_of_Prop_8/

[Elizabeth]

Hi Donna,

Had some trouble with the links, but found the story elsewhere. I doubt that the Supreme Court would order the Attorney General to file an appeal. It really is the discretion of the executive branch about what cases to appeal. Both the Attorney General and the Governor are elected positions, and as such both are accountable to the voters as well as entrusted to make such decisions.

If the court gets into the business of telling the Attorney General what cases to appeal, that is in effect gaming the system and makes the system become a partial participant instead of an impartial arbiter of the law. Such a precedent would really surprise me.

And as we found in the lawsuit to stop wiretaps, standing is everything. In that case the Appeals Court threw out the lawsuit because those who brought the suit could not prove they were harmed by the law, because it was a secret who was tapped. It is unlikely that the coalition to defend this law will be able to prove they are harmed by gay marriage and therefore should have standing.

It is significant that in the ruling that is being appealed, the Trial Judge found that the law could not even pass the "rational reason" test, much less the more stringent "compelling reason" test required in such cases. Without a rational reason for the law, this is going to make it even more difficult to prove standing.

Also because of failing the "rational reason" test, it's easy for Brown to say an appeal is unlikely to succeed. That makes the case frivolous and a waste of the Courts time.

So as far as the proponents of Prop 8, it's a real uphill battle. It's unlikely the state will be forced to appeal a ruling in Federal Court and those trying to appeal will be ruled to not have standing. This will in effect end the gay marriage ban on the West Coast and prevent further laws to try and stop it. But even if the coalition is allowed to appeal, it's still unlikely to succeed, again because of the findings of the trial judge.

Now I am not saying it's a "done deal" because one never knows what is going to happen in the legal system, but it appears unlikely to me the Supreme Court is ever going to hear this case. The Ninth Circuit Court ruling will become the law in all the states represented by the Ninth Circuit. Prop 8 is dead.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[DonnaT]

I agree, Elizabeth.

Many still hope it make it to the US Supreme Court so all this discrimination can be stopped, but it's not likely to get out of the 9th.