[dcmacdaddy]

The decision in its entirety can be read here.
U.S. District Court Decision: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

All the various news coverage can be read here.
BBC News - US judge overturns California same-sex marriage ban
CNN - Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
Christian Science Monitor - Prop. 8 overturned: Why Vaughn Walker ruled against gay-marriage ban
FOX News - Federal Judge Overturns California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
New York Times - U.S. Court Overturns Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban


As for my opinion on the decision, I think it was the correct decision.

In many threads on here I have argued that a state's only interest in marriage is to enforce legal/contractual obligations and to provide a means for dissolution of the legal/contractual obligations if the parties get divorced. This decision addresses the issue of marriage--not just gay-marriage but marriage in general--as a state's right and responsibility to enforce contractual obligations and pointedly dismisses as irrelevant the moral and/or religious arguments against gay marriage. I think this decision serves to make uniform the rights of all citizens in CA to obtain a marriage. I hope when the case finally reaches the Supreme Court they analyze the case from the same perspective of rights and ignore questions of morality. After all, the Constitution of the United States does not concern itself with the morality of the rights it outlines and/or delineates it concerns itself merely with the uniform applicability of said rights.

If you disagree with this decision please explain how you think the judge wrongly interpreted the Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause to arrive at his decision.

[OldManMac]

It's certainly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, it's a short one in a still long-to-come battle. Fortunately, more and more people are seeing that granting marriage rights to homosexuals does nothing to diminish their own marriages, which is something that fools like NOM don't want you to hear.

[imitchellg5]

Legally, it's hard to argue that it's the wrong decision.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Legally, it's hard to argue that it's the wrong decision.

Exactly.

Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

[mrtew]

Wow!!! For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country! (Someday I may even return!)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Legally, it's hard to argue that it's the wrong decision.

In what other ways could the decision be arrived at by a judge?



I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but I am genuinely confused at your suggested assertion that there might be other ways for a judge to arrive at a decision. The only thing a judge has to consider when evaluating a case is the legal parameters of it. There is NO other way a judge can evaluate a case except in light of its legal merits.

[Buckaroo]

There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.

This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.

This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.

Care to explain why the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply to homosexuals?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Care to explain why the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply to homosexuals?

Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This is why:

"‎The exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

If there comes a time when that can be said about siblings, then your concern would be a valid issue, rather than a strawman.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.
This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.

Capitalizing the NO just makes you sound more bullheaded, not more correct. And that's what almost all the rights guaranteed in the constitution are FOR: to go agains the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct. Otherwise the people would have removed your right of free speech, religion, assembly, guns, etc by now. The majority of voters is not the last word on what's legal thank God, especially not such a bare majority as amended the Calif constitution to eliminate it's requirement that all citizens be treated equally. And it definitely can't over-rule the US Constitution's requirement of equal treatment. So YES there is a doubt that the court made the wrong decision. In fact there is NO doubt that it's the right decision and NO court has EVER ruled the other way on this issue.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.

Sexual orientation is a protected class because it has a long history of irrational discrimination against it. That's the basis for all protected classes. The equal protection argument only works if the state doesn't have a compelling interest in passing the law and states DO have a compelling interest in preventing unions of siblings. There are many arguments for gay marriage and you've just singed out one to defend sibling marriage but there are other arguments against it that don't apply to gay marriage. The court said that there is no compelling reason to discriminate against gay marriage, but there would be against sibling marriage. I hope I'm not repeating myself in my attempt to be clear.

[Atheist]

How funny.... after all that money the Mormons spent on Prop 8.

[BadKosh]

So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.

Special Rights ≠ Equal Rights

What the majority wishes is not necessarily fair, just, or right.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships.

The natural conclusion to this statement seems to be "a gay relationship is therefore an unnatural event." I can't wait for the response.

...which, I sure, will include the point that "gay relationships" are indeed found "in nature." If that doesn't make them at least somewhat of a natural event, then I have trouble thinking of what would pass that test....

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.

You seem to have forgotten a fundamental tenet of law in this country: The "wishes of the majority" are not a factor in deciding what make laws Constitutionally acceptable. Morality, religious belief, and collective thinking (the "wishes of the majority") have NO role in deciding whether or not a piece of legislation is Constitutionally acceptable.

In fact, throughout the history of the United States the "wishes of the majority" have run counter to the principles of equality laid down in the Constitution on numerous occassions (c.f.: slavery, women's suffrage, racial segregation, personal privacy).

So no, the "wishes of the majority" are completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding the Constitutionality of a specific piece of legislation. This decision confirms that Constitutionally affirmed equality for all trumps the "wishes of the majority".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.

I don't think this decision makes sexual orientation a "protected class". On the contrary, this decision affirms that sexual orientation is, in fact, irrelevant when it comes to the state's duty to provide services equally to all its citizens. One of those duties/responsibilities is to recognize the legal/contractual obligations that arise when two consenting adults wish to join their lives together in marriage. This decision merely affirms that this duty/responsibility of the state applies to everyone whether those "two consenting adults" are male/male, male/female, or female/female.

As for your comment about siblings getting married, the government does have a vested interested in keeping siblings from getting married because of the high potential for mentally deficient offspring due to inbreeding. The large number of mentally deficient offspring that would result due to inbreeding would be inherently detrimental to the state. However there is no similar vested interest on the part of the government from keeping homosexual citizens from getting married. A marriage of homosexuals is not inherently detrimental to the well-being of the state as it has no negative side effects/repercussions to the well-being of the state.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

What the majority wishes is not necessarily fair, just, or right.

THIS.


The wishes of the majority, simply by default of being in the majority, due not make said wishes Constitutionally valid. The whole premise of the founding of our country is that "the wishes" of any one (i.e.: King George III) or any group (the majority) do not become law simply because their wishes are deemed to be correct. The whole premise of the founding of our country is that laws are subject to review and/or revision based on whether they comport with the founding document of this country, our Constitution.

[The Final Dakar]

This thread should be a blast.

[Laminar]

Hopefully B@d|<0$|-| will pick up the slack since Big Mac is missing.

[BadKosh]

So the marriage that gays have will be different than man-woman marriages.

[besson3c]

Especially if the gays are also LIBS

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Hopefully B@d|<0$|-| will pick up the slack since Big Mac is missing.

Don't you mean stupendousman?

[besson3c]

BadKosh: should government be in the marriage business?

[subego]

So, the government's position is "equal protection, unless you're in the army and then we can fire your ass"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, the government's position is "equal protection, unless you're in the army and then we can fire your ass"?

Semi-off topic, could someone sue the army on those grounds? Because I would think that'd have happened already if you could.

[besson3c]

[OAW]

If it were up to me, the government would simply get out of the "marriage" business altogether. The government would simply recognize "civil unions". Marriage could then be in the realm of the religious institutions that sanction them ... to grant or deny as they see fit. However, only civil unions would have any legal standing ... and they would be granted for any two unrelated individuals of legal age.

A civil union would not be in force until the civil union license is signed by both parties, the officiant, and a witness.

Religious institutions may, at their discretion, choose to allow its clergy to be officiants at a "marriage" ceremony where a civil union license is subsequently signed ... but they would not be forced to do so. However, if they do choose to allow their clergy to sign a civil union license they must not discriminate against any legally eligible couple. In that capacity they are essentially acting as an agent of the State .... so the law must be respected. If they are unwilling to do that across the board then they can't do it at all ... and all marriage ceremonies they perform would need to be followed-up with signing of the civil union license by a legally recognized officiant.

This way ... everybody can just STFU about the whole "gay marriage" issue. And those that insist on complaining anyway can be justifiably ignored.

OAW

[besson3c]

OAW: Stop making sense!

This is one issue that seems to have such simple solutions compared to other contentious issues.

[The Final Dakar]

So what's the verb for the act of being put into a civil union? What's the adjective? (i.e., what's the new marry and married?)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So what's the verb for the act of being put into a civil union? What's the adjective? (i.e., what's the new marry and married?)

Unionized? No, I guess that's already taken. That's just what the LIBERALS would want, actually: unionized marriages.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't you mean stupendousman?

Is he gone? I'll miss his stubborn fixation on shower analogies.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The argument for siblings, in theory, could fall under the Equal Protection clause, however, that is not our discussion. Prop 8 allowed the State to deny rights to a section of its population, which under the Constitution, is not allowed.

As it goes for the civil union vs. marriage debate, you an I are on the same page. Marriage should be an institution of the Church, civil union that of the State. Getting married should not qualify someone for State benefits without a civil union by the State.

It seems that you, unlike some others, realize that letting Tom and Bob or Nancy and Mary get married has no bearings or consequences to your marriage or that of any other.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Is he gone? I'll miss his stubborn fixation on shower analogies.

I don't know, but this discussion about "normal" is definitely his territory. We're asking a lot to expect BadKosh to stand in for him, that's like relying on a kitten to guard your house from burglars!


(just teasing, BadKosh)

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.

African Americans and women had little to no rights until the 20th century. I don't think the argument was ever made that they were special and deserved special treatment, just that they deserved to be treated equally.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.

Equal protection means you can't limit someone's right just based on the person's color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth.

You can't say Blacks can't get married, but Whites can.
You can't say anyone who marries an Asian will lose their citizenship, but marrying other races is fine.
You can't say only Christians are allowed to get married.


If California passes a law to ban redheads from getting married, it would be unconstitutional.

Hair color is not a "protected" class.

If California passes a law to ban people with thick non-American accents from getting married, it would be unconstitutional.

People with thick accents aren't a "protected" class.

If California passes a law to ban bald men from getting married, it would be unconstitutional.

Baldness is not a "protected" class.


You can't just make arbitrary "class" restrictions and say the are not a "protected class" in order to limit a person's equal rights.

What's next? Ban gays from becoming US citizens such as Asians were denied US citizenship until 1943?


If Prop 8 is constitutional, then:

I say everyone with the last name "Smith" should not be allowed to get married.

Smith's aren't a protected class, so they should not receive "special" rights.

[ironknee]

you can't limit love

[The Final Dakar]

That is egregiously arguable, and, really, a disservice to promoting a logical discussion in the thread.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

you can't limit love

Love, like morality and religious beliefs, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal ramifications of marriage.

Hell, when I was living in DC a buddy of mine and I almost got married just so he could get on my health insurance. He runs his own small home repair/renovation business and lost part of a finger in an accident with a table saw--the saw "caught" on the wood and his hand slipped off the pusher stick into the blade--and was not able to work for several months. Plus he had to fight the hospital to pay them in installments instead of one lump sum.

Anyway, we went back and forth on the matter for a couple months and were giving it serious thought. Because I lived in DC and worked for the federal government we didn't have to get married even, I would have had to just claim him as a domestic partner on my health insurance and file some other paperwork to assert he was my partner. But then I would up getting a promotion within my agency and moving to New York City. But yeah, the point of all of this is that love has nothing, NOTHING to do with the government's considerations regarding marriage. The legalities are all that matter.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So what's the verb for the act of being put into a civil union? What's the adjective? (i.e., what's the new marry and married?)

Civilise(d)?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Civilise(d)?

Copulate, coupled, or joined.

Maybe unionized.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Copulate

Nah, that’s for later on.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Nah, that’s for later on.

I can guarantee the gays aren't putting off sex until after marriage!

[besson3c]

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In what other ways could the decision be arrived at by a judge?



I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but I am genuinely confused at your suggested assertion that there might be other ways for a judge to arrive at a decision. The only thing a judge has to consider when evaluating a case is the legal parameters of it. There is NO other way a judge can evaluate a case except in light of its legal merits.

What? I wasn't suggesting that there was any other way.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I can guarantee the gays aren't putting off sex until after marriage!

Well, I’m sure there are some that are (you get weirdos in all groups ), but I was just pointing out that they wouldn’t—generally—be doing it while being civilised/unionised/coupled. I think that would rather offend the officiant’s * sense of decorum.

* Incidentally, what would those be called, then? Civilians/unionists/coupling devices?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This is why:

"‎The exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

Genders still have roles in society, roles that are immutable. At least, until men start giving birth.

If there comes a time when that can be said about siblings, then your concern would be a valid issue, rather than a strawman.

Last I checked, siblings are gendered like everyone else. Why are they any different that you wouldn't champion their right to marry?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

The argument for siblings, in theory, could fall under the Equal Protection clause, however, that is not our discussion. Prop 8 allowed the State to deny rights to a section of its population, which under the Constitution, is not allowed.

The Constitution does not regard a marital "right", thus it is a right conferred on the States. i.e. marriage is not a right, it is a civil privilege granted on a State by State basis. A State may or may not incentivize and/or acknowledge a same-sex marriage, but gays can certainly marry and as such they have equal protection under the laws. Where this gets dicey and why I support civil unions is that it is decidedly unconstitutional to deny the sharing of property, estates, hospital visitation, etc...

As it goes for the civil union vs. marriage debate, you an I are on the same page. Marriage should be an institution of the Church, civil union that of the State. Getting married should not qualify someone for State benefits without a civil union by the State.

We are indeed on the same page.

It seems that you, unlike some others, realize that letting Tom and Bob or Nancy and Mary get married has no bearings or consequences to your marriage or that of any other.

I appreciate that we can disagree on aspects of this issue without it devolving to "you hate gays" and caricatures of arguments that have nothing to do with the arguments themselves. Seriously, thank you. That's not only a rarity around here, it is particularly rare on this issue.

I'm disappointed at times with how some have expressed their opposition to gay marriage and how it "destroys the definition of marriage". Obviously, marriage has come to its dismal condition exclusively because of how heterosexuals have defined it; a lifelong commitment of monogamy you make at least twice in a lifetime, to two or more people, with prenups to protect assets, and court proceedings to decide who gets the kids you created.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Last I checked, siblings are gendered like everyone else. Why are they any different that you wouldn't champion their right to marry?

Inbreeding increases significantly the risks of hereditary genetic disorders.

[ironknee]

why do you care if gays marry?