I don't know how I missed this, but a federal judge struck down California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. However, the Judge, expecting that his ruling would be appealed, said that he would not require the state to stop enforcing Prop 8 during the appeal process

Link. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html)

EDIT: Better Link IMO. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life/)

Judge Walker wrote in his statement: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license ... 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.”

The plaintiffs in the case argued that Prop 8 violated the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and the judge agreed. This is definitely headed to the Supreme Court at some point, although not before 2011 - the SC has already decided on it's case load for the remainder of 2010.

Here's an interesting point though - the judge, Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. I'm sure we're going to hear a chorus of people saying that his decision was biased.

Here's an interesting point though - the judge, Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. I'm sure we're going to hear a chorus of people saying that his decision was biased.

It really makes you wonder who decides who will see what cases? Even the judge knows it was going to be sent to a higher court, but it really makes you wonder why they would give it to a judge where there will be a built in argument against his decision. If a married judge with four kids came to the same ruling it would have a much greater effect.

Gays can become judges in the US?

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF COUNTRY DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE DOWN THERE?!?

:p

Edit: But seriously, I agree with Snook. It's pretty hard to avoid the appearance of bias in a situation like this.

So it wouldn't be bias if the judge had been heterosexual?

So it wouldn't be bias if the judge had been heterosexual?

I don't think the judge was biased - I agree with his decision. However, even though his ruling seems sound, Judge Walker gives the impression of bias because he is gay i.e., if he has an interest of getting married (and I don't know if he does or not), then he has something to gain by ruling against Prop 8.

On the other hand, if the judge had been heterosexual, he would stand to gain nothing by ruling against Prop 8. So if he were heterosexual, the Judge would simply be labelled a "liberal activist judge" whereas in Walker's case he's a "liberal activist judge with an agenda".

EDIT: And out of curiosity, what happens if you live in a state like Iowa, get married to someone of the same sex, and then move to somewhere else where gay marriage is not recognized? Are you then unmarried?

EDIT: And out of curiosity, what happens if you live in a state like Iowa, get married to someone of the same sex, and then move to somewhere else where gay marriage is not recognized? Are you then unmarried?

Under the full faith and credit clause other states would have to uphold their marriage, just like when same sex couples adopt and move to states that don't allow homosexuals to adopt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

I don't believe that applies due to the DoMA. Which itself may be repealed eventually because of that conflict.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

It really makes you wonder who decides who will see what cases? Even the judge knows it was going to be sent to a higher court, but it really makes you wonder why they would give it to a judge where there will be a built in argument against his decision. If a married judge with four kids came to the same ruling it would have a much greater effect.They don't 'give a case to a judge'. They don't sit there and debate: Eh, this is going to be fun, you're gay, you like to try prop8?

Usually in a larger court there is a plan which judge will be responsible for claims, say, from A-F. It is made well in a advance. In order to be your legal judge he is this way to be specifically appointed to hear and rule over your case (and who is if he is sick or dead etc.pp.). If then the judge appointed for W-Z hears you, that's a violation of proceedings, and an appeal can be based on that alone. The pre-determination of judges in advance is meant to ensure neutrality. Simplified and according to German law, but I doubt it is much different in the US. In a sentence: It was simply this judge's turn.

You may perhaps have wished he'd recuse himself, but why? Does his sexuality warp his legal arguments, in a gay way? Expecting him to recuse himself is like expecting female judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases filed by woman about domestic violence. Eh, she's too close to that group - woman! Or think about divorced judges not recusing them hearing divorce cases. Eh, he's biased against divorcing wives!

I can readily understand why he didn't recuse himself: (a) He would have stalled the case when it is in everybody's interest to see it resolved quickly, (b) he would have, in a sense, humiliated himself (by implying that his gender would make it a problem for him to rule rationality over this case - very understandably he refused to do that), and lastly (c) there is a reasonable argument for unconstitutionality, and you don't need to be gay to see that.

Anti-gay crusaders would reliably appeal a ruling against prop8 anyway. As part of their legal activism they do that habitually in order to provoke precedents (on gay marriage, and also creationism, abortion etc. pp. - pick your wedge issue).

And prop8 opponents would do the same. Because they IMO rightfully, see laws like prop8 as legal discrimination (unlike the largely abstract threat post by gay marriage to American society [starting with the erosion of traditional marriage ... and ending with making God mad so he'll send hurricanes and earthquakes], laws like prop8 pose a very concrete problem for gays who choose to live together).

This trajectory would have brought the case to the higher court anyway, so what's the difference who ruled over the first case in federal court - a gay, a lesbian, a straight or a zebra judge?

In a sense it would be deliciously ironic if in appealing the decision over prop8 - meant to protect the sanctity of marriage and nothing but (irony!) - the proponents would indeed start bashing the judges gender instead of speaking on the merits of the law. Having a gay judge ruling over prop8 might just lure them out of the closet (pun!).

I don't believe that applies due to the DoMA. Which itself may be repealed eventually because of that conflict.

I agree with you, untill DoMA is repealed, the full faith and credit clause is out. But isn't DoMA unconstitutional considering it contradicts part of the constitution?

You may perhaps have wished he'd recuse himself, but why? Does his sexuality warp his legal arguments, in a gay way?
You clearly wouldn't want a straight person judging the case either, as clearly they'll be biased. So no gays and no straights is the obvious solution.

in my opinion the bisexual crowd seems to be getting larger and larger as time goes on and more and more people seem to see that it doesnt really matter if your male or female and falling in love with eaither a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. i seem to be running into a lot more younger people that are bi on the internet. im bi myself so to me love knows no bounds.

I think it's early to call it 'gone the way of the Dodo', but this is certainly a blow against it. On the case of bias, I read a review of the decision that made the arguement from a different stand. In that reviewer's opinion, the Judge took every chance to criticize the defense's arguements as groundless and their witnesses as biassed, and every option to praise the plaintiff's arguement as logical and their witnesses as unbiassed.

That itself hints at bias. Hints, mind you, not proves. He may well have judged the case honestly and fairly, and the defense was just completely incompetent.

As for the sexuality thing, it does raise some concerns, but I doubt it's enough for appeal just on those grounds. A heterosexual judge would be better, simply because you can't see any clear drive for them to be for or against gay marriage. There are plenty of heterosexuals who support each position, and plenty more who are divided. I can't say I've ever met a gay person who didn't support gay rights, though.

Anyway, we'll see what happens on appeal.

You may perhaps have wished he'd recuse himself, but why? Does his sexuality warp his legal arguments, in a gay way? Expecting him to recuse himself is like expecting female judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases filed by woman about domestic violence. Eh, she's too close to that group - woman! Or think about divorced judges not recusing them hearing divorce cases. Eh, he's biased against divorcing wives!

Allow me to explain. I am using the rules that accountants follow and maybe our rules are stricter than lawyers/judges. In my profession in order for us to audit a company's books and issue a report on the financial statements we have to be independant. We have a laundry list of rules and regulations that we have to follow to determine if we are independent. However, at the end of the day, the rule is we have to be independent in fact and appearance. It is the appearance part that typically disqualifies people from doing the work.

No matter how good and just of a judge this guy is there is no way he can appear impartial in appearance as he is someone who would be directly impacted by the decision in one way or another.

Now I've seen people chime in and try to imply that the opposite is true and that a heterosexual is in the same boat and maybe we should find some bisexuals to help out. These are ludicrous arguments as they have no basis in reality. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that almost 100% of the homosexual population would like the decision to go the way it did. The opposite is not true as there is no where near 100% of the hetrosexual population who are against the decision. Just looking at the people on this board it is clear that hetrerosexuals could very easily side with the judge in this case (or there are plenty of people who I assumed are straight are actually gay, and you know who you are...)

Now I've seen people chime in and try to imply that the opposite is true and that a heterosexual is in the same boat and maybe we should find some bisexuals to help out. These are ludicrous arguments as they have no basis in reality. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that almost 100% of the homosexual population would like the decision to go the way it did. The opposite is not true as there is no where near 100% of the hetrosexual population who are against the decision. Just looking at the people on this board it is clear that hetrerosexuals could very easily side with the judge in this case (or there are plenty of people who I assumed are straight are actually gay, and you know who you are...)

Actually the most ludicous argument presented so far, is that a judge, who happens to be gay, should recuse himself. Implying that a judge, because of sexuality couldn't make a just decision.
The next thing will be, that black judges can't judge on racial cases or as allready said female judges can't judge on cases involving domistic violence against women.

if we accept your ludicrous assumption, nobody could infact judge any case, because no matter what you could find some slight bias in favor of one of the sides.
Or we can accept that judges are highly trained public servants who don't let personal feelings interfere with their cases.

Republicans have been trained by their talking heads for about thirty years to fear bias, and use bias, real or alleged, as a reason to discount countervailing views. It's an integral part of their political absolutism (conservatives are absolutely right, everyone else is absolutely wrong, on everything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brF8W29AKi8)). In that narrative, and it is not more than that, this ruling is a case of liberal judicial activism in which a gay judge interpreted the lay in a gay way. IMO that narrative is largely BS.

People who object to his ruling ought to try to explain how the judge is wrong, not how he is gay. It boils down to two questions:

(1) How does prop8 not violate the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause? (2) How it advances a rational basis (beyond: the dictionary says marriage is between a man and a woman) for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

Anyone has a text of prop8?

Anyone has a text of prop8?

the text is fairly short and simple
Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2.
Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

for does of you who are interrested in the actual trial progress you can find transcripts of each court sesion here http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/ and re-enactment of the trial here http://www.marriagetrial.com/

Actually the most ludicous argument presented so far, is that a judge, who happens to be gay, should recuse himself. Implying that a judge, because of sexuality couldn't make a just decision.
The next thing will be, that black judges can't judge on racial cases or as allready said female judges can't judge on cases involving domistic violence against women.

Your examples aren't the same thing. A black judge can rule on a racial case because he wasn't the one who had race used against him. A female judge can judge a domestic violence case as she wasn't the one who was beaten up. Although I believe in both cases the judge should recuse themselves if in the first case the Judge was involved in a racial case or in the second case the Judge was a battered spouse.

They don't let you sit on a jury if you have been involved in a case similar to the case on trial, why should they allow the judge to do the same thing.

In this case the judge does have something to gain by his decision. Would they allow a judge to sit in a class action lawsuit if the judge was going to end up being one of the plaintiffs? Of course they wouldn't allow that. In this case the judge clearly has the potential (I'm not saying he will) for benefit. That is why I believe it was either a stupid move for whoever put him on the case or it was a mistake in the judge's judgement to not recuse himself to avoid any hint of a lack of objectivity.

This judge may be a great guy and he may have the correct decision, but they should have found someone else do it.



People who object to his ruling ought to try to explain how the judge is wrong, not how he is gay. It boils down to two questions:

(1) How does prop8 not violate the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause? (2) How it advances a rational basis (beyond: the dictionary says marriage is between a man and a woman) for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

I liked some of this guy's article on the subject (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x312167023/Ambrose-California-judge-ignores-history-democracy)

The decision of Vaughn Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, does that very thing through illogical sleight of hand. Negating a 52 percent vote by Californians disallowing same-sex marriage, he said the ban violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality under the law. As much could conceivably be true only if he first took it on himself to define the institution differently from what it has been throughout most of history.

It has been a union of male and female often afforded an array of privileges because the family unit has been crucial to propagating and nurturing the species. While for obvious reasons they may choose not to, no homosexual is denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex anymore than heterosexuals are permitted to enter same-sex marriages.

There is no inequality here, and to assert the opposite is equivalent to saying it's discrimination to deny Social Security to young, able-bodied working people. Or to deny food stamps to the rich. Or to tell octogenarian men they cannot join the Boy Scouts.


I think his last example is inappropriate as the Boy Scouts is a private organization that makes its own rules not a government entity/law. I believe this will be the argument used to show that the amendment doesn't violate the equal guarantee clause.

Still, depending on the outcome of legal proceedings now underway, even married gay couples cannot obtain federal rights given to heterosexual married couples. Perhaps more important to many gays is the wish to have their unions socially sanctified. They have a sense of oppression. They want acceptance.

I personally feel this is what this entire issue is really about and I'm not convinced the way to go about becoming accepted is to really piss off a large section of the population. You get more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar.

For disclosure purposes- I have nothing against homosexuals as I have some lesbian cousins who I like very much. I do object to the term "gay marriage" as I'm a traditional kind of guy and if marriage meant a man and a woman for a couple of thousand years I see no reason to change it. I have no objection to "civil unions" or similar type things. I believe they can be given the exact same "rights" that married people have. In fact, considering that Obama is going to let the Bush "tax cuts" expire and the "marriage tax" will be back (I thought only people making over $250K were going to see their taxes go up) I would be thrilled to see homosexual couples have to pay the same taxes I do.

Your examples aren't the same thing. A black judge can rule on a racial case because he wasn't the one who had race used against him. A female judge can judge a domestic violence case as she wasn't the one who was beaten up. Although I believe in both cases the judge should recuse themselves if in the first case the Judge was involved in a racial case or in the second case the Judge was a battered spouse.


actually my cases was exactly the same thing and you missed the point completelly. But keep talking about how blacks and women can't be impartial in cases involving either blacks or women. The point was, which I even wrote below, that you can accusse all judges in all cases of having some form of bias or you can accept that judges generally are so well trained, that they ignore whatever bias they may have.
Sadly you have chosen the form, which is no surprise, considering you cleary are willing to deny gay people the same rights as strait people.

I do object to the term "gay marriage" as I'm a traditional kind of guy and if marriage meant a man and a woman for a couple of thousand years I see no reason to change it. I have no objection to "civil unions" or similar type things. I believe they can be given the exact same "rights" that married people have.
So basically you're saying it's a matter of semantics. Same rights, different terminology. This seems to be totally at odds with what you quoted earlier:

It has been a union of male and female often afforded an array of privileges because the family unit has been crucial to propagating and nurturing the species.

...which is saying that the rights afforded by marriage 9or whatever you choose to call it) should not be extended to gays.

Edit: I do agree with Snook on the difference between black/female judges ruling on the cases cited vs. a gay judge ruling in this case. The former have nothing to gain personally, whereas a gay judge potentially does. Whether or not bias actually exists is irrelevant; it's the appearance of bias that matters.

There was one line in Jay Ambrose's article that jumped at me:Negating a 52 percent vote by Californians disallowing same-sex marriage, he said the ban violated the U.S.That captures it in one sentence: He expects that a judge makes his legal views meet that of the majority (and incidentally, his views) - which very well can be something other than what the law says.

The will of the people means little if it is irreconcilable with the constitution. Then these 52 percent of Californians hold an unconstitutional view. That the judge dared defy the collective will of 52 percent of Californians, because he thought that this will as expressed in prop8 is unconstitutional, ought to be reassuring from a rule of law point of view - after all: If prop8 was unconstitutional negating the will of 52 percent of Californians was imperative.

---------- Added 0 hours, 47 minutes and 40 seconds later... ----------

Edit: I do agree with Snook on the difference between black/female judges ruling on the cases cited vs. a gay judge ruling in this case. The former have nothing to gain personally, whereas a gay judge potentially does. Whether or not bias actually exists is irrelevant; it's the appearance of bias that matters.That would perhaps be correct if the judge was gay. So far he hasn't said anything to that effect. So far his gay- or not-gay-ness is a rumour (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0806/conservatives-media-force-judge-admit-gay/).

actually my cases was exactly the same thing and you missed the point completelly. But keep talking about how blacks and women can't be impartial in cases involving either blacks or women. The point was, which I even wrote below, that you can accusse all judges in all cases of having some form of bias or you can accept that judges generally are so well trained, that they ignore whatever bias they may have.
Sadly you have chosen the form, which is no surprise, considering you cleary are willing to deny gay people the same rights as strait people.

I think you need to go back and read what I posted. I do believe that blacks and women can be impartial in cases involving blacks or women. I also believe that homosexuals can be impartial in cases that involve homosexuals. Where I do not believe anyone can be impartial is in cases where they may derive a persoanal benefit and that is clearly the case here.

I also have no desire to deny homosexuals any rights. I just don't believe the use of the word "marriage" is a right.

So basically you're saying it's a matter of semantics. Same rights, different terminology. This seems to be totally at odds with what you quoted earlier:



...which is saying that the rights afforded by marriage 9or whatever you choose to call it) should not be extended to gays..

You are confusing what I said with what I quoted the other guy said. However, I'm not even sure that the other guy is against giving homosexuals the same rights. I think he was just giving the historical reasons why there were benefits given to married couples. It wasn't done for evil purposes, it was done as the traditional family unit has historically been the most stable, which may not be the case any more.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

There was one line in Jay Ambrose's article that jumped at me:That captures it in one sentence: He expects that a judge makes his legal views meet that of the majority (and incidentally, his views) - which very well can be something other than what the law says.

The will of the people means little if it is irreconcilable with the constitution. Then these 52 percent of Californians hold an unconstitutional view. That the judge dared defy the collective will of 52 percent of Californians, because he thought that this will as expressed in prop8 is unconstitutional, ought to be reassuring from a rule of law point of view - after all: If prop8 was unconstitutional negating the will of 52 percent of Californians was imperative.


I like how you jumped on the part of the article that didn't answer the question you asked to deflect the part that did answer your question. Well done.

I think you need to go back and read what I posted. I do believe that blacks and women can be impartial in cases involving blacks or women. I also believe that homosexuals can be impartial in cases that involve homosexuals. Where I do not believe anyone can be impartial is in cases where they may derive a persoanal benefit and that is clearly the case here.

I also have no desire to deny homosexuals any rights. I just don't believe the use of the word "marriage" is a right.


So in order to find an impartial judge, I just have one question. who actually benefits from denying them the right to marry and use the word marriage?

Snook,
I stand with what I wrote, and I ignored the rest of that article because it was unpersuasive, largely since it ignores the reality of homosexual couples living with each other (the horror), at times with children (THE HORROR). That reality poses a set of very tricky and messy legal problems that are best solved with something akin to marriage.

We are talking about end-of-life decisions among partners, inheritance, questions of child care etc. pp. You apparently neither have an idea nor an interest to imagine how difficult it is for homosexual couples to settle these things satisfactorily by contract. What happens to the young children of a homosexual partnership if the biological parent dies? Usually, if there has not been an adoption (complicated, costly), the other parent will be denied care, never mind that he or she may have helped raising the kid. Problem. In case of a split in such a relationship, that about such a construct? The adoption would have to be revoked. Difficult. Messy. I could go on.

But no, marriage is sacred, so let them have it? It is not the idea of law to make life intentionally difficult for some fellow citizens, so that the rest feels better about themselves.

I like marriage a lot (and being unmarried, it may be easy to), but that is beside the point: There are already homosexual couples who are raising children. They may not be many, but they are there. The problems of decision making, inheritance and the like are everyday problems as well. There is no reason from a child care or raising point of view to deny homosexual couples a workable legal framework, and to work satisfactorily such a framework will need to have many of the elements that characterize marriage. If you don't like it, too bad - it's still a reality.

I give a damn how it is called, for simplicity's sake call it a civil union, while claiming to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage (which, since I am catholic, is a thing you settle with your priest anyway). This is a real legal problem, a really messy one, and the civil union is the most practical and sensible solution. The only thing that disallowing civil unions does is to increase the workload of the courts, imposing costs on the public.

Even if prop8 turns out to be constitutional, what would surprise me, it is still an ideological law, that does not aim on solving practical legal problems - as laws IMO should - but that was conceived to deal with the advancement of political goals instead.

You are confusing what I said with what I quoted the other guy said.

No. You said you liked the article; granted, you said "some" of it, but I assumed you liked (and therefore agreed with) the parts you quoted unless you specifically stated otherwise (like you did with the boy scout analogy). But whatever.
However, I'm not even sure that the other guy is against giving homosexuals the same rights. I think he was just giving the historical reasons why there were benefits given to married couples. It wasn't done for evil purposes, it was done as the traditional family unit has historically been the most stable, which may not be the case any more.

I disagree; that seemed to me to be a major component of his argument. And I don't think the term "evil" applies here; "out-dated" would be better.

Snook,
I stand with what I wrote, and I ignored the rest of that article because it was unpersuasive, largely since it ignores the reality of homosexual couples living with each other (the horror), at times with children (THE HORROR). That reality poses a set of very tricky and messy legal problems that are best solved with something akin to marriage.

We are talking about end-of-life decisions among partners, inheritance, questions of child care etc. pp. You apparently neither have an idea nor an interest to imagine how difficult it is for homosexual couples to settle these things satisfactorily by contract. What happens to the young children of a homosexual partnership if the biological parent dies? Usually, if there has not been an adoption (complicated, costly), the other parent will be denied care, never mind that he or she may have helped raising the kid. Problem. In case of a split in such a relationship, that about such a construct? The adoption would have to be revoked. Difficult. Messy. I could go on.

But no, marriage is sacred, so let them have it? It is not the idea of law to make life intentionally difficult for some fellow citizens, so that the rest feels better about themselves.

I like marriage a lot (and being unmarried, it may be easy to), but that is beside the point: There are already homosexual couples who are raising children. They may not be many, but they are there. The problems of decision making, inheritance and the like are everyday problems as well. There is no reason from a child care or raising point of view to deny homosexual couples a workable legal framework, and to work satisfactorily such a framework will need to have many of the elements that characterize marriage. If you don't like it, too bad - it's still a reality.

I give a damn how it is called, for simplicity's sake call it a civil union, while claiming to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage (which, since I am catholic, is a thing you settle with your priest anyway). This is a real legal problem, a really messy one, and the civil union is the most practical and sensible solution. The only thing that disallowing civil unions does is to increase the workload of the courts, imposing costs on the public.

Even if prop8 turns out to be constitutional, what would surprise me, it is still an ideological law, that does not aim on solving practical legal problems - as laws IMO should - but that was conceived to deal with the advancement of political goals instead.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the homosexual community really cared about the "rights" they would have spent their effort on gaining the "rights". Instead they spend all of their effort on getting the word "marriage" which if anything hurts their cause for it clearly upsets a lot of people. If they really cared about the rights, and they focused on them instead, they probably would have them all by now. Instead they are trying to use the legislature and the judiciary for acceptance. In my opinion they will be sadly disappointed.

It wasn't so long ago that the word "gay" meant happy. As an example imagine that heterosexuals everywhere decided they wanted to take back the word "gay" to mean happy and they in droves they joined "gay" groups and took them all over and in "gay" parades they dominated them with floats of happy people. What if people starting walking around with "gay pride" buttons that were just smilie faces? I'm guessing the homosexual community would be very upset to lose the word "gay". I see it as the same thing.

It wasn't so long ago that the word "gay" meant happy. As an example imagine that heterosexuals everywhere decided they wanted to take back the word "gay" to mean happy and they in droves they joined "gay" groups and took them all over and in "gay" parades they dominated them with floats of happy people. What if people starting walking around with "gay pride" buttons that were just smilie faces? I'm guessing the homosexual community would be very upset to lose the word "gay". I see it as the same thing.

Are you for real? are you really so stupid, that you think denying million of peoples equal rights in the eye of the law is acceptable over a word? also you didn't answer my question, who benifits from denying homosexuals equal rights? and to follow it up, since you apparently wants this discussion about rights, to be about semantics, who suffers from sharing the word marriage with the homosexuals?

The term 'gay' meant homosexual back in the 30's ... perhaps even earlier.

The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637[1] and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations."[8] This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints." A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.

The use of gay to mean "homosexual" was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920s, and there is evidence for it before the 20th century,

Took this off wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay).

Instead they spend all of their effort on getting the word "marriage" which if anything hurts their cause for it clearly upsets a lot of people.

When they say EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS, that's exactly it. Why wouldn't they be able to marry as any other heterosexual couple. EQUALITY is what they're after.

Oh, and black people wanting equal rights probably also "upset a lot of people" at the time.

Are you for real? are you really so stupid, that you think denying million of peoples equal rights in the eye of the law is acceptable over a word?

I don't think that is what Snook is saying. He is saying that the term "marriage" sets off red lights in some people (espeically the orthodox religious crowd, who believe they have sole ownership of the term marriage). He's not saying he is one of them (I think).

Are you for real? are you really so stupid, that you think denying million of peoples equal rights in the eye of the law is acceptable over a word? also you didn't answer my question, who benifits from denying homosexuals equal rights? and to follow it up, since you apparently wants this discussion about rights, to be about semantics, who suffers from sharing the word marriage with the homosexuals?

Yes, I'm for real and I don't appreciate the personal attack on my intelligence. However, I will respond to you anyway.

First of all homosexuals aren't any where as oppressed as you are trying to make them out to be. They are not considered property, they can vote, they can work, they can go to school, etc. If anything they are a protected class of citizens which actually gives them super rights. If someone beats up someone because they are homosexual that is called a "hate crime" and the perp does additional jail time. If an employer fires someone because they are homosexual the government will sue the employer and the fired employee can expect a cash settlement. These are just two examples of things that don't happen if someone is from a non-protected class. Note, I'm not looking for a pity party for heterosexuals, I'm just pointing out that there is a drastic difference between the plight of homosexuals and black people pre the civil rights movement.

The only rights that homosexuals don't currently have are rights that only married heterosexuals have and the majority of them deal with estate and health care planning. Be aware that single heterosexual people do not have these rights either. About the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that single heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not is the right of custody and visitiation for natural born children (considering in a homosexual couple only one "parent" ends up on the birth certificate).

Now lacking some of these rights are actually a benefit as it can exempt a broken up couple from alimony and child support. I also previously mentioned that it exempts the homosexual couple from the "marriage tax" which is a flaw in the U.S. tax system that Bush fixed, but Obama is going to restore in which two single people combined pay less taxes then the same two people would if they got married.

I personally believe that homosexual couples should be entitled to all the pains and pleasures that heterosexual married couples enjoy. I also believe that this would be far easier to convince our legislatures of, and the general population would probably also be more agreeable for when explained rationally most people see the inequity.

Now you asked who suffers from sharing the word "marriage". The short answer is people of faith be they conservative (like the Mormons who voted for Prop 8) or liberal (like the black people who overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop 8). To be honest it was probably Obama running for President that caused Prop 8 to pass for if the black people had stayed home it probably wouldn't have passed. People of faith be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim believe that marriage is a sacred act between God and the couple. The fact that the state charges them a fee to get a marriage license does not factor into the equation or make it a government function in their eyes. As you are probably aware there are branches of the Christian religion, and I believe all Muslims consider homosexuality a crime against God (I do not believe the Jews have a position on it either way). Therefore there are a lot of people that when this button is pushed go ballistic. That is why I believe that the "homosexual lobby" isn't really about getting the rights it is about getting the "word" and trying to force acceptance on people who will not accept it.

I don't consider this smart at all. The homosexuals should campaign for the rights they deserve, have their civil unions, and live peacefully with their neighbors. That is the way towards getting true acceptance, not trying to ram it down people's throats.

not trying to ram it down people's throats

I'm not sure I wanted that image in my head....

If someone beats up someone because they are homosexual that is called a "hate crime" and the perp does additional jail time. If an employer fires someone because they are homosexual the government will sue the employer and the fired employee can expect a cash settlement. These are just two examples of things that don't happen if someone is from a non-protected class. Note, I'm not looking for a pity party for heterosexuals, I'm just pointing out that there is a drastic difference between the plight of homosexuals and black people pre the civil rights movement.You're own argument kind of defeats itself, here. If you beat up a homosexual and didn't know he was gay, it isn't a hate crime. If you fire a homosexual for incompetence or unprofessional behavior, the homosexual will have no grounds to sue. Add to that the simple fact that beating up a white man because he is white qualifies as a hate crime and firing an employee because he is white qualifies as discrimination, and your argument [that homosexuals are entitled to more protection than regular Americans] falls flat. Sure, homosexuals are protected by the government. Then again, so are educated white protestant males.

Now lacking some of these rights are actually a benefit as it can exempt a broken up couple from alimony and child support.Please. That certain rights come with responsibilities attached does not make denying such rights to someone a "benefit".

I also previously mentioned that it exempts the homosexual couple from the "marriage tax" which is a flaw in the U.S. tax system that Bush fixed, but Obama is going to restore in which two single people combined pay less taxes then the same two people would if they got married.Actually, Obama only rolled that back for couples earning more than $250,000 per year. For the other 98% of us, there is no "marriage tax."

The homosexuals should campaign for the rights they deserve, have their civil unions, and live peacefully with their neighbors. That is the way towards getting true acceptance, not trying to ram it down people's throats.Part of equality entails equal treatment. "Separate but equal" had its time in the sun, but we left it behind for a reason. If homosexuals are restricted only to "civil unions," so should everyone else -- and this isn't really a bad idea, either. After all, if "marriage" is so sacred, then the government has no place administering them. It's a great compromise, since everyone will be equally unhappy.

Actually, Obama only rolled that back for couples earning more than $250,000 per year. For the other 98% of us, there is no "marriage tax."

Part of equality entails equal treatment. "Separate but equal" had its time in the sun, but we left it behind for a reason. If homosexuals are restricted only to "civil unions," so should everyone else -- and this isn't really a bad idea, either. After all, if "marriage" is so sacred, then the government has no place administering them. It's a great compromise, since everyone will be equally unhappy.

On the first one, I'm not quite sure you have that correct. Obama is restoring the marriage tax by doing nothing to continue the Bush tax cuts. Since the marriage tax existed before Bush got rid of it, if everything he did is expiring it will be back.

As to your second point it is a very valid point. Maybe the answer is to have all of the county clerks in the country change the forms to say "civil union license". The people who care about the term marriage won't care as in the eyes of God they are married. Although something tells me the homosexuals who are looking for acceptance will be sorely disappointed in the result.

Are you for real? are you really so stupid,

Snook is for real, but his track record on the Boards suggests that he is definitely not stupid. His opinions may differ from yours (and mine), but that doesn't make him an idiot. Let's leave the personal attacks alone, and stick to the issues.

On the first one, I'm not quite sure you have that correct. Obama is restoring the marriage tax by doing nothing to continue the Bush tax cuts. Since the marriage tax existed before Bush got rid of it, if everything he did is expiring it will be back. I looked it up on FactCheck.org before posting and I'm inclined to agree with their conclusions. This recent article (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/treasury-secretary-says-letting-bush-tax-cuts-for-rich-expire-will-not-slow-economic-growth.htm) also supports their conclusion.

In an interview on ABC News’ "This Week" to air Sunday, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner said the White House would push to let the Bush tax cuts expire for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000, but keep them for middle and lower income Americans.

Snook is for real, but his track record on the Boards suggests that he is definitely not stupid. His opinions may differ from yours (and mine), but that doesn't make him an idiot. Let's leave the personal attacks alone, and stick to the issues.Yep. Views on this topic are not so much a question of intelligence but one of worldview. Snook is very much for real. But I can't leave it at Snook's views differing from mine - while he certainly isn't stupid, I frankly think he is wrong here.

I understand Snook's arguement, but I see it failing in one aspect: every time gays have petitioned for 'civil unions', they've ended up with fewer rights than full marriage grants. If you want equal protection under the law, it has to be the same law. Seperate but equal never worked.

I understand Snook's arguement, but I see it failing in one aspect: every time gays have petitioned for 'civil unions', they've ended up with fewer rights than full marriage grants. If you want equal protection under the law, it has to be the same law. Seperate but equal never worked.

I am not aware of any situations where civil unions or having the rights attached to them have been an issue.

I am not aware of any situations where civil unions or having the rights attached to them have been an issue.Issues exist. In 2008, the New Jersey Civil Union Review commission conducted a study finding that, among other things, many employers refused to offer same-sex couples who've had "civil unions" the same health insurance benefits as "married" couples. Massachusetts, then the only state to allow gay marriage, did not have the same problems.

Here (http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf) is a link to the comission's final report. Be warned, though. It's a pdf.

... homosexuals should campaign for the rights they deserve, have their civil unions, and live peacefully with their neighbors.

If homosexuals are considered equal under the law (which they are), then they should be entitled the exact same rights that heterosexuals are. They shouldn't have to 'settle' for civil unions so some sort of fagg... *****. It's amazing that otherwise intelligent people seem to struggle with this basic concept.

I honestly never understood the strong opposition of heterosexuals to homosexual marriage. How on earth does two homos getting married effect the quality of a marriage between two heteros? Why is this even still an issue?

If I were a homo, I honestly wouldn't give a **** if a bunch of ********s were angered by the thought of me marrying the man I love, I'd tell them to go **** their partner. You don't go begging for equal rights with cap in hand, YOU DEMAND THEM. The homos should band together and do what the Women's Suffrage movement did (ie. tear the place up and create chaos).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that marriage should not exist at all. Married couples should not receive government benefits that individuals or non-married couples do not. That's discriminatory. However, I'm of the opinion that if we must retain the outdated institution of marriage, at least grant that right to homosexuals to remain consistent.

Mordea, many religious folk object to homosexual marriages for the same reason they object to prostitution: their religion says it's wrong. They object to their nation embracing these things because, well, it's their nation (at least in part) and their society (at least in part). We all have concerns for the good of our society (or at least we should).

That being said, though, our nation is secular, meaning it shouldn't be concerned with things religious. That being said, though, why is the government involved in marriage at all? And why do married couples get certain benefits that singles don't? Of course, many of them are simply relational legalities that reflect the presumed relationship (next-of-kin, medical power of attorney, etc.). As for taxes, until recently, married couples often payed more (if filing jointly), and may again if certain Bush tax cuts expire. How does that make sense?

Personally, I say if the government is going to recognize relationships at all, they should all be civil unions, and we religious folk can go to Church (or Temple, or Mosque, or whatever) to get married.

Mordea, many religious folk object to homosexual marriages for the same reason they object to prostitution: their religion says it's wrong.


One cannot justify the denial of someone's Constitutional Rights on personal beliefs, be they religious of arreligious. American citizens are entitled to equality before the law, irrespective of their gender, race, creed, or sexual orientation.


They object to their nation embracing these things because, well, it's their nation (at least in part) and their society (at least in part). We all have concerns for the good of our society (or at least we should).


I find that those who claim to be fighting for the 'greater good' very rarely actually have the best interest of the collective at heart.

In this particular scenario, such a justification is especially weak, as providing homosexuals with the right to marry wouldn't even affect the quality of heterosexual marriages, let alone the health of society.


That being said, though, our nation is secular, meaning it shouldn't be concerned with things religious. That being said, though, why is the government involved in marriage at all?


Been there, said that. As I made clear in my previous post, I don't think marriage should exist as a government institution. *However*, if it *must* exist, let both homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights to benefit/suffer from it.


As for taxes, until recently, married couples often payed more (if filing jointly), and may again if certain Bush tax cuts expire. How does that make sense?

I don't know about that. Isn't one of the veteran posters on this forum an accountant? Hopefully he will drop by and enlighten us.

I find that those who claim to be fighting for the 'greater good' very rarely actually have the best interest of the collective at heart.

That's not true. In fact you could say they have the best interest of society in mind but not necessarily the best interest of the individual (granted, there may be a limited scope in their definition of society). However, those with the 'greater good' in mind could also think they are looking at the 'eternal good' of others (trying to aid eternal salvation). Homosexuality is generally not in the best interest of any species (or any society of that species) for any reason except population control. I don't agree with any of the afore mentioned sentiment but I understand the mentality.

Government must be involved in marriage simply because there are legal ramifications of marriage and government benefits associated with marriage.

The issue with the 'greater good' arguement is that it's rare to find two people who have exactly the same idea of what 'good' is. There's an old saying, whenever you have two people, you have at least three opinions on anything. It applies to definitions of 'good' and 'evil' as much as to anything else.

That's not true. In fact you could say they have the best interest of society in mind but not necessarily the best interest of the individual (granted, there may be a limited scope in their definition of society).


No. They have the best interest of *themselves* in mind. They simply try to get others to buy what they are selling by trying to spin it as if they 'care' about society.

If all these people genuinely cared about the 'greater good', they would spend far more of their time donating to charity and engaging in volunteer work, instead of accumulating more money to buy a third porsche.

So excuse me if I roll my eyes (:rolleyes:) whenever I hear someone claim that they are working to improve society as a whole, rather than their own standing within it.


However, those with the 'greater good' in mind could also think they are looking at the 'eternal good' of others (trying to aid eternal salvation).


If these people truly cared about the welfare of homosexuals, they would attempt to reach them with kindness, acceptance, and reasoned thought, rather than with threats of violence and ostracisation. Ergo: If more Christians hated the sin, instead of the sinner, I might buy that they actually care about homosexuals, rather than simply ensuring that everyone conforms to their antiquated religious beliefs.


Homosexuality is generally not in the best interest of any species (or any society of that species) for any reason except population control.
I don't agree with any of the afore mentioned sentiment but I understand the mentality.


I don't. I don't see how allowing for homosexual marriage would have any effect on the population, nor the welfare of the species. Homosexuals are going to remain gay, whether they are allowed to marry or not.


Government must be involved in marriage simply because there are legal ramifications of marriage and government benefits associated with marriage.

Legal ramifications and benefits which should not exist. Added to which, marriage has historically been a religious institution. If you must give couples special rights and benefits, do it through secular civil unions, which are granted to all couples in a relationship, sexual or non-sexual.

Added to which, marriage has historically been a religious institution.

Not really. Marriage has been around probably before recorded time. There are records of marriage in ancient Mesopotamia. One of the theories of why marriage was done at the time was for sexual exclusivity.

No. They have the best interest of *themselves* in mind. They simply try to get others to buy what they are selling by trying to spin it as if they 'care' about society.

If all these people genuinely cared about the 'greater good', they would spend far more of their time donating to charity and engaging in volunteer work, instead of accumulating more money to buy a third porsche.
A lot of us do, but we rarely make the news

If these people truly cared about the welfare of homosexuals, they would attempt to reach them with kindness, acceptance, and reasoned thought, rather than with threats of violence and ostracisation. Ergo: If more Christians hated the sin, instead of the sinner, I might buy that they actually care about homosexuals, rather than simply ensuring that everyone conforms to their antiquated religious beliefs.
Again, a lot of us do, but we rarely make the news.

Not really. Marriage has been around probably before recorded time. There are records of marriage in ancient Mesopotamia. One of the theories of why marriage was done at the time was for sexual exclusivity.
Marriage has been at least in part a religious matter for as long as we know. Of course, in the early days, government was a religious matter (or was religion governmental?), so things get a little sticky.

Sexual exclusivity? Thought too short imo. Only as a means to an end. It was about inheritance and the continuation of the bloodline.

If you look at very ... old fashioned ... communities today that can be very clearly seen: The very reason why the Pashuns in Afghanistan hide their women and treat them in our eyes like crap, is that they are paranoid about their bloodlines. That's why they have honour killings and that's why they will kill you for calling them a bastard.Marriage has been at least in part a religious matter for as long as we know. Of course, in the early days, government was a religious matter (or was religion governmental?), so things get a little sticky.You may well be reading that into it. In many societies marriage has distinct contractual characteristics. Never mind the spiritual component - since I am a catholic marriage is a sacrament - but beyond that marriage inevitably involves the worldly, thus worldly requirements permeate marriage. Marriage has always been a solution to real world problems.

The reason religion went into it was to give it greater legitimacy - it is no accident that in ye olde days, when reason didn't rule, Kings were King by the grace of God, not because they took power, conquered a land or were born into office. The divine was the cause of law. Only the Renaissance and the age of enlightenment changed that. To the better.

I also have no desire to deny homosexuals any rights. I just don't believe the use of the word "marriage" is a right.

Do you believe in a right to privacy? Because that is exactly where the equal protection clause comes into play. Essentially, it boils down to there being an implied right to privacy. The argument is that marriage is a private matter - that any person can marry whomever they wish (provided that the two people are consenting adults) without government approval and/or interference. It was the equal protection clause, with the implied right of privacy that caused inter-racial marriages to be ruled unconstitutional. The same clause is what caused laws regarding contraceptive use to be ruled unconstitutional. It was also that clause that was the deciding factor in the (in)famous Roe v. Wade decision.

EDIT: The larger point - there is legal basis for considering marriage - and the use of the term - a right.

I am not keen on gay marriage, but I think that there are other world problems that take priority. That said, however, I want to pose a question:

Everyone is talking about the fact that the judge who struck the law down is gay. In the first place, the fact that there IS a gay judge undermines the contention that gays are horribly discriminated against in our society at the current time. But I digress. Some in favour of Prop 8 are saying that his gayness interfered with his judgement. Everyone opposed to Prop 8 is saying that his gayness had nothing to do with it, and that his decision was based on a rational and reasonable interpretation of the legal code. In other words, they are asking us to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt and trust that he wasn't letting his personal feelings cloud his judgement.

I actually have no problem doing that (which might surprise some on these boards!) But my question involves reversing the situation: What if the polarities on this were reversed? What if the judge were a Catholic or Mormon, and had ruled in favor of Prop 8? Would the opponents of Prop 8 be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? Or would they immediately cry bias and claim that religious people are too stupid, selfish, venal, bigoted, and all around foolish to seperate their religious beliefs from their decision making?

Make no mistake, I despise the proponents of Prop 8 who are using the judge's homosexuality against him -- they are fools. I think his track record deserves the benefit of the doubt. But I also think that many of the people claiming that we should give a proven judge the benefit of the doubt would be singing an entirely different tune if the shoe were on the other foot. Such hypocritical bastards earn my eternal contempt.

The thing is, you DON'T have to give him the benefit of the doubt because his ruling is in black and white for anyone to read. So you can read his conclusions and what facts he based them on and decide for yourself.

And his conclusions aren't gay. It's normal legal reasoning; reasonable reasoning even.

But my question involves reversing the situation: What if the polarities on this were reversed? What if the judge were a Catholic or Mormon, and had ruled in favor of Prop 8?

That's not reversing the situation though. A more appropriate question would be: What if the judge was heterosexual, and had ruled in favour of Prop 8? Would everyone be up in arms, squealing 'Bias!'? I doubt it.


In the first place, the fact that there IS a gay judge undermines the contention that gays are horribly discriminated against in our society at the current time.


Um, what? A gay judge's ruling is being questioned because of his sexual orientation. As I observed earlier, had he been heterosexual and ruled in favour of Prop 8, I doubt his sexual orientation would have been a sticking issue.

Also note that the fact that we are even discussing this matter (ie. whether gays should be allowed to marry) pretty much conclusively proves that gays are horribly discriminated against. If your country passed a law tomorrow preventing blacks from marrying each other, I think we know how the general public would respond.

(a) Judge Walker's homosexuality is an allegation; not fact.
(b) He is a registered Republican ... ok, THEN he may well be gay (yes, a cheap shot :shake:)

as for the activist judge (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/gerard-bradley-proposition-marriage-sex-california-judge/) ... that's :bs:

(c) Walker was appointed by St. Reagan and then by Bush Sr.
(d) His Republican and conservative credentials are beyond dispute. From what I read, he is of the libertarian, law-and-economics branch of the G.O.P., not the socially conservative, religious-right branch.

Interestingly, the effort to overturn Proposition 8 was led by a bipartisan dream team consisting of George W. Bush’s and Al Gore’s attorneys from the 2000 election campaign, Ted Olson and David Boies. Add in some more decisions (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/how-the-gop-gave-us-judicial-equality.html) where Republican judges have decided against the Christian Right (in the general sense of the word). If it is a trend, that may be signal that Republican judges and lawyers are sending. I'd welcome that.

You may well be reading that into it. In many societies marriage has distinct contractual characteristics. Never mind the spiritual component - since I am a catholic marriage is a sacrament - but beyond that marriage inevitably involves the worldly, thus worldly requirements permeate marriage. Marriage has always been a solution to real world problems.
Ragusa, in many societies, especially early ones, religion has distinctly contractual characteristics. Seriously, study the 10 Commandments. They're a formal contract between God and His people, in the traditions of the time.


The reason religion went into it was to give it greater legitimacy - it is no accident that in ye olde days, when reason didn't rule, Kings were King by the grace of God, not because they took power, conquered a land or were born into office. The divine was the cause of law. Only the Renaissance and the age of enlightenment changed that. To the better.
I think you may have made my point, but in doing so assumed I was wrong. We have no record of a government, or even a society, seperate from religion until Athens, and even that was iffy (I don't think any of the gods established their democracy). It then becomes a chicken-and-the-egg game. Did government and order come before religion, and religion get tacked on later, or did religion come first and establish the governmental system? No one knows.

Do you believe in a right to privacy? Because that is exactly where the equal protection clause comes into play. Essentially, it boils down to there being an implied right to privacy. The argument is that marriage is a private matter - that any person can marry whomever they wish (provided that the two people are consenting adults) without government approval and/or interference. It was the equal protection clause, with the implied right of privacy that caused inter-racial marriages to be ruled unconstitutional. The same clause is what caused laws regarding contraceptive use to be ruled unconstitutional. It was also that clause that was the deciding factor in the (in)famous Roe v. Wade decision.

While I agree with your reasoning on equal protection, I really can't see how privacy comes into play on any of these. Yes, there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, but that doesn't prevent the government from legislating against something. And it really goes to pot when you seek government sanctioning of your 'private' act. It's not really private at that point.

That's not reversing the situation though. A more appropriate question would be: What if the judge was heterosexual, and had ruled in favour of Prop 8? Would everyone be up in arms, squealing 'Bias!'? I doubt it.
No, LKD had it right. A heterosexual doesn't necessarily have any bias for or against gay marriage, as this discussion has proven. A mormon or catholic, however, sees it as a violation of their religion (whether they care to defend their religion or not is another matter).


Interestingly, the effort to overturn Proposition 8 was led by a bipartisan dream team consisting of George W. Bush’s and Al Gore’s attorneys from the 2000 election campaign, Ted Olson and David Boies. Add in some more decisions (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/how-the-gop-gave-us-judicial-equality.html) where Republican judges have decided against the Christian Right (in the general sense of the word). If it is a trend, that may be signal that Republican judges and lawyers are sending. I'd welcome that.
Yes, and I've read a few opinion pieces (on FOX if you'll believe it) arguing that conservatives need to divorce ourselves from the homosexuality issue, that it's in direct conflict with our belief in a strong constitution. I agree.

A mormon or catholic, however, sees it as a violation of their religion (whether they care to defend their religion or not is another matter).Homosexuals (who in light of catholic doctrine tend to not be catholic anyway) are nothing I have to defend my religion against, not any more than I have to defend my religion against, say, Hindu paganism.

And since I accept the separation of church and state, I accept as a reality other people's sexual orientation, or religion, as long as they conform with the constitutional order. Homosexuality isn't illegal; Hinduism isn't either. So I have a problem with neither.

And I believe that FOX is capable of critical reporting. There is just very little of that. As far as personalities go, Shepard Smith is very much, if quite welcome, an exception on FOX. And Judge Neapolitano, never mind the format of his show, which I think is terrible, is at times a very sharp and rational legal observer. For instance he also considers SB 1070 unconstitutional. I doubt he thinks about prop8 any different.

I think you may have made my point, but in doing so assumed I was wrong. We have no record of a government, or even a society, seperate from religion until Athens, and even that was iffy (I don't think any of the gods established their democracy). It then becomes a chicken-and-the-egg game. Did government and order come before religion, and religion get tacked on later, or did religion come first and establish the governmental system? No one knows.


I don't think he was addressing the issue of which came first; I think by "Ye Old Days" he was addressing sepcifically the Divine Right of Kings in the MA.

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including the church. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king, the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute heresy.

The remoter origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the Church, centering on the Pope. The immediate author of the theory was Jean Bodin, who based it on the interpretation of Roman law. With the rise of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation, the theory of divine right justified the king's absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England (1603–1625, also James VI of Scotland 1567–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715), though Catholic, strongly promoted the theory as well.

The theory of divine right was abandoned in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. The American and French revolutions of the late eighteenth century further weakened the theory's appeal, and by the early twentieth century, it had been virtually abandoned.

The notion of complete sepration of chruch and state seems a modern one, as Ragusa points out (the Enlightenment). His larger point is that religion has been fairly useful for despots and tryannical states during most times, regardless of the structure of the institutions. This is almost certainly a Jeffersonian view of government and religion.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


Here is the text of the letter. It is an interesting read.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/jeffspaff.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings

Everyone is talking about the fact that the judge who struck the law down is gay. In the first place, the fact that there IS a gay judge undermines the contention that gays are horribly discriminated against in our society at the current time.

If you wiki Judge Walker, you'll see that his original appointment was by Reagan (as Ragusa points out). So Judge Walker is no spring chicken - the guy is in his 60s. While it is suspected he is gay, that is probably not something that was suspected when he was initially appointed 30 or so years ago.

Some in favour of Prop 8 are saying that his gayness interfered with his judgement. Everyone opposed to Prop 8 is saying that his gayness had nothing to do with it, and that his decision was based on a rational and reasonable interpretation of the legal code. In other words, they are asking us to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt and trust that he wasn't letting his personal feelings cloud his judgement.

But my question involves reversing the situation: What if the polarities on this were reversed? What if the judge were a Catholic or Mormon, and had ruled in favor of Prop 8? Would the opponents of Prop 8 be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? Or would they immediately cry bias and claim that religious people are too stupid, selfish, venal, bigoted, and all around foolish to seperate their religious beliefs from their decision making?

Well, as you said, there are some people that are claiming bias because he is suspected of being gay. It defies beflief that had the situation been as you say, that no one would cry foul. I think that's just human nature.

While I agree with your reasoning on equal protection, I really can't see how privacy comes into play on any of these.

There have been numerous SC cases over the course of the past 50 or so years that have interpreted the equal protection clause as an implied right of privacy - on contraception, abortion, inter-racial marriages and anti-sodomy laws just to name a few. That has been the interpretation by SC Justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

The first broad interpretation of a right to privacy in the due process clause came from SC Justice John Marshall Harlan II in 1961, who was a conservative, appointed by Eisenhower. For review the first article of the 14th Amedment states:

"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."

Harlan's opinion was that if all people have the same "liberty" that cannot be denied to them, then there is an implied right of privacy. The first case where we saw such an interpretation involved a challenge to a Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives. He wrote in his opinion:

"This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints."

This is one of the most oft-cited opinions in the history of the SC, and certainly the most famous passage Harlan ever wrote. Harlan went on to conclude that that the due process clause therefore encompassed a right to privacy, and that a prohibition on contraception violated this right. In the years since, the SC would adopt Harlan's approach, relying on the due process clause in right to privacy cases such as the ones I listed earlier.

Yes, there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, but that doesn't prevent the government from legislating against something. And it really goes to pot when you seek government sanctioning of your 'private' act. It's not really private at that point.

There are reams of paper filled with SC rulings that disagree with your assessment of this. I think those opinions stand on their own merits, and there is nothing I can possibly add that would strengthen or detract from them.

Homosexuals (who in light of catholic doctrine tend to not be catholic anyway) are nothing I have to defend my religion against, not any more than I have to defend my religion against, say, Hindu paganism.

And since I accept the separation of church and state, I accept as a reality other people's sexual orientation, or religion, as long as they conform with the constitutional order. Homosexuality isn't illegal; Hinduism isn't either. So I have a problem with neither.
Exactly, but you could see how someone could look at a Catholic ruling on such issues and say they have a conflict of interests or a bias. It's not necessarily true, just like a gay judge (assuming this guy even is one) ruling on homosexual marriage isn't necessarily biassed, but the appearance is there.


Aldeth, while I know there have been numerous SC rulings on Right to Privacy, I confess I don't understand it. How can a necessarily public matter fall under Right to Privacy? Is the right just misnamed? This right has been used to undo laws against a variety of activities, but what are it's limits? Is drug use constitutionally protected because of privacy? That seems to make more sense to me than gay marriage (as that's actualy a private matter). What about consensual incest? Cannibalism? I can think of a dozen illegal things that someone could claim as a private matter, but are still illegal today.

And, just to clarify, I really am asking for enlightenment on this issue. It's never made sense to me.

And, just to clarify, I really am asking for enlightenment on this issue. It's never made sense to me.

And I was hoping that my previous post would have been more informative. The previous post was a brief history of how the right to privacy has been legally interpreted, to show by corrolary how marrying whomever you chose (provided you are both consenting adults of course) can also be seen as one "liberty" we have. I was hoping that part would be enlightening...

So I'm not sure I can help clarify any further. I could post some more SC cases where the right of privacy clause was invoked, but it sounds like that won't help either, as the entire concept of this appears to be foreign to you. I posted Harlan's reasoning for his decision, and if you do not understand the conclusion he drew, I'm not sure I can help futher. Who can better explain what Harlan meant than Harlan himself, who actually wrote his opinion on the matter? You may want to read more of the opinion in that or other right to privacy cases where the Justice will expand on his views, although the paragraph I posted from Harlan is the most famous part of that opinion.

Would it make more sense if I said the right to chose who you will marry is a private affair? Yes, marriages (the actual ceremony) are part of the public record, but your marriage is part of your personal life, and thus, private. The only public part is the actual ceremony, even though you may be married to that person for 50 or more years.

As to your larger question about what falls under the right to privacy, generally speaking, it's anything that doesn't have any ill-consequences on anyone, and doesn't infringe on anyone else's right of privacy. (I'm sure there is a much more specific legal definition, but I don't know it.) Drug use, whether the legal kind like tobacco and alcohol, or the illegal kind like marijuana or heroin, have always been a gray area for precisely that reason - all pose a potential harm (at least to the user), but their legal status varies.

Consensual incest could result in harm to any potential children you have, and there's a whole host of weird brain diseases you can get from eating other humans, and I imagine even once you are dead, there are some people who would not want to be eaten. I cannot imagine there's even such a thing as consensual cannibalism, and there are laws already on the books about desecrating a body.

Then again, the gay population is much larger than the population who wants legalized consensual incest and cannibalism. (Out of curiosity - where would one go to get the bodies? If you're killing people in order to eat them, that would obviously be harmful.) The point being that about 3% of people are gay, so there are millions of people living in the US in that group. Conversely, there's probably about 3 people living in the US who would like legalized consensual incest and cannibalism, so they are kind of silly examples to use. (Drug use is much better, but as we see, there is talk of at least a partial legalization of marijuana.)

EDIT: But this is all diversionary from the topic at hand. This has been the interpretation of right to privacy for about half a century at this point. Any way you want to look at it, right to privacy (taken as a whole - not as it specifically applies to gay marriage) is settled law. Even if you do not completely understand why this is so, you should accept it as so for the purposes of this discussion.

EDIT: Walker issued an order that gay marriages may resume on August 18th, unless the feredal Circuit Court of Appeals intercedes. Walker said taht would give the Circuit Court of Appeals time to decide whether or not Proposition 8 would continue to be enforced during the appeal process. If the Circuit Court does nothing, same sex marriage can resume as early as next week. Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38671236/ns/us_news-life/)

Looks like it may be over after all. Schwartzenegger and Brown say they won't appeal, and it's not likely anyone else who wants to appeal has standing to do so.

It seems this went down a few years sooner than I expected.

This seems to be a case where one set of people are attempting to impose their religious view on another without a sound civil argument for doing so (I strongly doubt that children raised by gay parents are harmed or that gay marriage harms straight marriage).

That said this could actually be a win for religious liberty.

There are religious groups that accept gay people and allowing them to practice their religion freely doesn't hurt society or unnecessarily hinder them as prop 8 did.



The letters referred to by Chandos earlier are interesting historical bits but may be being abused by positiveatheism as one of the criticisms of priests is that they have messed up the "purest religion" ever preached at that point (thus a criticism of organized religion not living up to that religion's values).

Though the letter can be criticized itself as religious leaders both in the US and the rest of the world have been part of opposing unfair and/or oppressive treatment of people by dictators themselves individually or political/economic systems as a whole.

(Sorry Chandos, bringing up "positive atheism" can touch on topics in discussions about religion and atheism we've already been in).


This is about minority rights being abused/ignored (yes a few major religions are pushing the abuse/ignoring but they aren't the only religious groups party to the discussion). And it appears the undoing of prop 8 simply happened several years earlier than I expected. I don't know what the political effects will be but I will not miss nor morn for prop 8.

Though the letter can be criticized itself as religious leaders both in the US and the rest of the world have been part of opposing unfair and/or oppressive treatment of people by dictators themselves individually or political/economic systems as a whole.


No doubt. Jefferson was very cryptic about his own religious beliefs. For one thing, he considered anyone's beliefs a very private matter and he took pains to keep his own beliefs private. Secondly, he sent mixed messages about his own beliefs, more than likely as tactic to keep his political enemies off-balance, who often used Jefferson's supposed "atheism" against him in instances when he ran for public office.

But there was one thing Jefferson was clear about and that was the separation of Church and State. Ragusa's point was that modern politics were less informed by organized religion than they were in times past, despite what the Sarah Palins of the world may say. And that is a very Jeffersonian [Enlightenment] PoV.

Thomas Jefferson believed strongly in religious freedom and the separation of church and state. While President, Jefferson was accused of being a non-believer and an atheist. Jefferson attended church services in the Capitol and on several occasions expressed his beliefs including this letter explaining his constitutional view. "I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the constitution from intermedling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. this results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the US."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

And I was hoping that my previous post would have been more informative. The previous post was a brief history of how the right to privacy has been legally interpreted, to show by corrolary how marrying whomever you chose (provided you are both consenting adults of course) can also be seen as one "liberty" we have. I was hoping that part would be enlightening...
It's more how they call it 'privacy' (the interpretations of the right have rarely seemed to have anything to do with privacy to me) that confuses me.


Would it make more sense if I said the right to chose who you will marry is a private affair? Yes, marriages (the actual ceremony) are part of the public record, but your marriage is part of your personal life, and thus, private. The only public part is the actual ceremony, even though you may be married to that person for 50 or more years.
I completely disagree with this, for the simple reason that people live together, have sex, and even have kids, all without being married. Marriage, as a State institution, is a legal contract with certain benefits and rights, and nothing more and nothing less. If you want to be allowed to visit your loved one in the hospital, as married couples can, that's a public matter (i.e. involving more than the two of you). If you want to file for taxes jointly, that's a public matter. If you want to be given medical power of attorney, or automatically inherit everything if there's no will, that's a public matter. If you want to live together for 50 years, have sex, have children (speaking marriage in general, not specifically homosexual marriage here), raise children, and grow old together... you don't have to be married.


As to your larger question about what falls under the right to privacy, generally speaking, it's anything that doesn't have any ill-consequences on anyone, and doesn't infringe on anyone else's right of privacy. (I'm sure there is a much more specific legal definition, but I don't know it.) Drug use, whether the legal kind like tobacco and alcohol, or the illegal kind like marijuana or heroin, have always been a gray area for precisely that reason - all pose a potential harm (at least to the user), but their legal status varies.
So, as a hypothetical, just to explore the issue, what's your read on bestiality and privacy?

NOG, bestiality isn't illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because it is animal abuse. There is no such thing as "consensual bestiality." We don't pass laws based on whether something is "moral." Lots of "immoral" things always have been, and always will be, and currently are legal.

As to the matter of the settled law regarding the right to privacy, whether you agree with it or understand it is largely irrelevant. It's still settled law.

More fun (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0813/judge-doubts-gay-marriage-bans-backers-appeal/):California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

In refusing to suspend his ruling for more than a few days, Walker agreed with the lawyers who sued to strike down the ban that it's unclear if Proposition 8's sponsors have legal standing to appeal.

Although he allowed the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the measure to defend the lawsuit during the 13-day trial over which he presided, the judge said appellate courts have different rules for deciding when a party is eligible to challenge a lower court.

Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.What a silly episode this is:
A Mormon funded anti-gay ballot initiative leads, in California of all places, to prop8. Inevitably that law gets challenged in court, by a bi-partisan legal team. The judge rules prop8 as unconstitutional and the proponents probably can't appeal. The Secretary of State and the Governor of California refuse to support an appeal of the decision.

Prop8 (and the US primary process), underline to me the worst about direct democracy - it leads to directly funded and PR powered special interest initiatives (and candidates). In the essence, marketing makes law, not reason. Direct democracy works in a state as small as Switzerland, or a town where people would fit in an amphitheater. But in a place like the US? The horror!

NOG, bestiality isn't illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because it is animal abuse. There is no such thing as "consensual bestiality." We don't pass laws based on whether something is "moral." Lots of "immoral" things always have been, and always will be, and currently are legal.
So, does that mean that whenever animals mate, it's animal abuse at the hands of other animals? What if a person mates with an animal that's in heat? I know, it's a ridiculous question, but it's bugging me now.


As to the matter of the settled law regarding the right to privacy, whether you agree with it or understand it is largely irrelevant. It's still settled law.
Yes, but the future applications of it (such as whether or not it applies to marriage) rely on how one understands it. I don't, so I'm trying to.


Ragusa, there's a lot more to Prop8 than that. Before Prop8, there was a law passed that banned gay marriage, with popular support. Then, a judge struck down that law as unconstitutional. Almost immediately after, the Prop8 people began collecting signatures to put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, which they thought would be immune to the reasoning the judge had used to strike down the law. It recieved substantial support. The people of California, surprisingly, oppose gay marriage, in two elections and numerous polls. The courts have ruled that they're not allowed to force their views on the minority, though.

NOG,
when animals mate, that's animals among animals, it remains in the species. The difference to gay sex, unless what you want to suggest that there is none, is that the latter isn't inter species. Now, the next thing you want to say isn't incidentally that that border is arbitrary? The beginning of the slippery slope - the beginning of the unstoppable slide into Babylonian wh*redom? Or that it is unnatural? Get to the point.

On an only slightly related note (that does not have anything to do with you NOG):

American Fundamentalist Protestants and their relentlessness, and their peculiar reading of the Bible, start to get on my nerves. A while ago I got my hands (we have a probably pentecostal English language congregation around here) on a tract that described in titillating detail the debauched, scandalous and largely imaginary excesses in Catholic nunneries, before explaining at length why I and all Catholics will burn in hell, and deserve it. I have also read another such tract on homosexuality, that also went into titillating detail about them gay's abominable practices.

My view on this is that this is the Fundamentalist Protestant equivalent to pornography. If life is that dull that one needs to excite the flock with such scandal, maybe it's about time to spice up Sunday church lemonade with some rum? With such nonsense from the 'Freikirchen' floating around, I start to like Lutherans (dour folk that they are).

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 28 seconds later... ----------

Ragusa, there's a lot more to Prop8 than that. Before Prop8, there was a law passed that banned gay marriage, with popular support. Then, a judge struck down that law as unconstitutional.Shouldn't that have rung a bell? Maybe the content of the law - that gays must not marry - was constitutionally problematic? Which calls into question the wisdom of simply reiterating that rule in another law? Was that taken into account? Apparently not, as repeated defeats in court, mind you, at the hand of conservative judges, suggests. There are two explanations for such behaviour:... stupidity, or a thinking that what must not be legal (gay marriage), can not be legal, and/or ... ... fishing for precedents, even defeats, in the hope to perhaps find a sympathetic judge, while being content with creating headlines and polarisation. And while doing all that, one can cynically play the tune "We are victims of liberal activist judges!" and practice divisive politicsAlmost immediately after, the Prop8 people began collecting signatures to put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, which they thought would be immune to the reasoning the judge had used to strike down the law. It received substantial support. The people of California, surprisingly, oppose gay marriage, in two elections and numerous polls. The courts have ruled that they're not allowed to force their views on the minority, though.You know, I am of the opinion, that if you held a poll on legislation in, for the sake of argument, Texas, with a lot of PR, you could probably persuade the necessary 51% of the population to reintroduce public hangings, shootings, whippings and perhaps quartering, or that Texan citizens could volunteer for firing squads. And depending on where one dares to go, one may even get majorities for stoning adulterers and killing gays under Biblical law.

While such legislative proposals may or may not receive substantial support, their content would probably be unconstitutional, irrespective of the vote. I suggest that that may be the case with the first California law, and prop8 as well. As long as there is a constitution, legality isn't just a question of the polls or popular support for a given measure.

I don't think direct democracy is the problem. It's that the average citizen doesn't care enough to take the time to be informed about what they are voting. To me it's just as bad to vote for Prop 8 because you were successfully marketed to as it is to vote for your government representatives for the same reason. And I think you will get almost the same crappy government; just look at the city of Bell and the outrageous salaries their city managers/sheriff/councilmen gave themselves because the people were not watching (until recently).

NOG,
when animals mate, that's animals among animals, it remains in the species. The difference to gay sex, unless what you want to suggest that there is none, is that the latter isn't inter species. Now, the next thing you want to say isn't incidentally that that border is arbitrary? The beginning of the slippery slope - the beginning of the unstoppable slide into Babylonian wh*redom? Or that it is unnatural? Get to the point.
I was questioning the logic of the Right to Privacy, not the morality of it. Don't worry, I wasn't going anywhere else with these questions. Homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Church* regardless of what the law says, and a constitutional right regardless of what the Church says. I was just exploring the limits of this 'right to privacy'.

Of course, this brings up the whole question of what defines 'animal cruelty'? But that's another topic.


Shouldn't that have rung a bell? Maybe the content of the law - that gays must not marry - was constitutionally problematic? Which calls into question the wisdom of simply reiterating that rule in another law? Was that taken into account?
I'm sorry, I may not have described it properly. The first law was found to be against the Californian Constitution (if I remember correctly). In response, they decided to amend the Constitution (which I think they somehow expected to survive a challenge based on the US Constitution, which it didn't).


You know, I am of the opinion, that if you held a poll on legislation in, for the sake of argument, Texas, with a lot of PR, you could probably persuade the necessary 51% of the population to reintroduce public hangings, shootings, whippings and perhaps quartering, or that Texan citizens could volunteer for firing squads. And depending on where one dares to go, one may even get majorities for stoning adulterers and killing gays under Biblical law.
In Texas? I'm quite sure you could, and I doubt you'd even have to advertise it much. The reason is because it enjoys public support. I was responding to your claim:
it leads to directly funded and PR powered special interest initiatives (and candidates)
The point is that this wasn't some privately funded PR driven special interest initiative, it was a popularly supported by the people. The point of democracy you really have a problem with is the tyranny of the masses, which is why we have a constitution (or two, in fact, in any given state).

I don't think direct democracy is the problem. It's that the average citizen doesn't care enough to take the time to be informed about what they are voting.I emphatically agree about the latter and emphatically disagree about the former. To me the latter is precisely what makes the former problematic.The point is that this wasn't some privately funded PR driven special interest initiative...It was precisely that. It was filed by an activist group named 'ProtectMarriage.com' (http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf) [PDF]. AFAIK they were the only official campaign in favour of Proposition 8. They are an umbrella group that was endorsed byAlliance Defense Fund
American Family Association
California Family Alliance
California Family Council
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries
Eagle Forum of California
Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Faith2Action
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Liberty Counsel
Pacific Justice Institute
Traditional Values CoalitionThat's a lot of Christian Right groups i.e. 'special interest'. And you should read The Mormon Money Behind Proposition 8 (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-mormon-fact.html). Sullivan writes that apparently not just 40% but actually about 77% of the funding for prop8 came from Mormon donors.

That prop8 received a majority when it was eventually voted on - that can be interpreted as popular support - but it does not mean that the initiative itself emerged out of general Californian outrage over gay marriage. It took a PR campaign to generate the majority that voted prop8 into law....The first law was found to be against the Californian Constitution (if I remember correctly). In response, they decided to amend the Constitution (which I think they somehow expected to survive a challenge based on the US Constitution, which it didn't).The California constitution will likely hold the same values and principles that the United States constitution holds - in Germany with the individual states it is just the same way. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_%282000%29), which, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the California Supreme Court. After that it shouldn't come as a surprise that courts view prop8 and its predecessor as equally unconstitutional.
~ * ~
You also really ought to view these ads for the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act:

oqe4mx2N7E0

3LnIDwx9M_s

Hahahaahahahaha.

Wait. That's satire, right?

Only sort of. If you visit the website, you'll see that they really are trying to collect the necessary signatures to put this on the ballot. They have taken all the necessary preliminary steps and are providing all the necessary tools. It appears that this will go on the ballot If they collect enough signatures.

It was precisely that. It was filed by an activist group named 'ProtectMarriage.com' (http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf) [PDF]. AFAIK they were the only official campaign in favour of Proposition 8. They are an umbrella group that was endorsed byThat's a lot of Christian Right groups i.e. 'special interest'. And you should read The Mormon Money Behind Proposition 8 (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-mormon-fact.html). Sullivan writes that apparently not just 40% but actually about 77% of the funding for prop8 came from Mormon donors.
And how many people voted for it? How few groups give funding to anti-gun laws, and how many people vote for them? Or against anti-gun laws vs who votes for them? Propositions are often filed by one group, even when they enjoy popular support, just like bills are proposed by one individual.


That prop8 received a majority when it was eventually voted on - that can be interpreted as popular support - but it does not mean that the initiative itself emerged out of general Californian outrage over gay marriage. It took a PR campaign to generate the majority that voted prop8 into law.
The 'initiative' has been percolating around the entire US for decades. This was hardly something suggested by an outside group that the masses knew nothing about. You may be able to make that arguement on issues like Net Neutrality, but not anti-gay marriage laws.


The California constitution will likely hold the same values and principles that the United States constitution holds - in Germany with the individual states it is just the same way. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_%282000%29), which, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the California Supreme Court. After that it shouldn't come as a surprise that courts view prop8 and its predecessor as equally unconstitutional.
State constitutions can't contradict the federal constitution, but they can go further than it does. So, for example, if the US Constitution said nothing on the issue at all, a state constitution could. I seem to recall the specific issue in the California Constitution wasn't in the US Constitution, or wasn't quite the same, or something.


~ * ~
You also really ought to view these ads for the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act:
Gah, I think I just lost some brain cells. What was the point of that, Ragusa?

Hahahaahahahaha.

Wait. That's satire, right?
I'm honestly not sure. The only site I could find that mentioned it was RescueMarriage.org, and that's the site 'sponsoring' it, so it could easily all be a joke these days. Maybe Ragusa will fill us in.

And how many people voted for it? How few groups give funding to anti-gun laws, and how many people vote for them? Or against anti-gun laws vs who votes for them? Propositions are often filed by one group, even when they enjoy popular support, just like bills are proposed by one individual. ... The 'initiative' has been percolating around the entire US for decades. This was hardly something suggested by an outside group that the masses knew nothing about. You may be able to make that arguement on issues like Net Neutrality, but not anti-gay marriage laws.I don't loose sleep over you disagreeing with me on this.State constitutions can't contradict the federal constitution, but they can go further than it does. So, for example, if the US Constitution said nothing on the issue at all, a state constitution could. I seem to recall the specific issue in the California Constitution wasn't in the US Constitution, or wasn't quite the same, or something.Careful: Since state constitutions can't contradict the federal constitution, them going further means they can only do that by offering greater protection. They must not offer less, since that would contradict the US constitution.Gah, I think I just lost some brain cells. What was the point of that, Ragusa?I wanted to confuse you. It worked:I'm honestly not sure. The only site I could find that mentioned it was RescueMarriage.org, and that's the site 'sponsoring' it, so it could easily all be a joke these days. Maybe Ragusa will fill us in.Certainly: It is satire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/john-marcotte-california_n_287796.html) and the guy devised it as a sarcastic counterpoint to prop8. John Marcotte commented:Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even moreHe's right. Only banning gay marriage is a half measure indeed, especially if one compares divorce numbers to the number of gay marriages.

State constitutions can't contradict the federal constitution, but they can go further than it does. So, for example, if the US Constitution said nothing on the issue at all, a state constitution could.

That's not really true. That's like saying you can amend the Constitution with an unconstitutional amendment, and presto! It's suddenly Constitutional. The standards for State Constitutions are higher than simply not contradicting the federal Constitution - they must be in compliance with all the parts of the federal Constitution.

---------- Added 21 hours, 35 minutes and 46 seconds later... ----------

Actually, now that it looks like the case won't be appealed, it leaves me to wonder what ripple effects this ruling may have. Prop 8 was challenged on federal grounds. While Prop 8 amended California's Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the court case did not challenge the law because it violated California's Constitution - they used the US Constitution in their defense.

I guess the question then is: Does this ruling set a prescedent? Does it logically follow that since Prop 8 is unconstitution, that other similar laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are also unconstitutional? It would seem so, but I'd like to hear from some of our local lawyers.

Actually, now that it looks like the case won't be appealed, it leaves me to wonder what ripple effects this ruling may have. Prop 8 was challenged on federal grounds. While Prop 8 amended California's Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the court case did not challenge the law because it violated California's Constitution - they used the US Constitution in their defense.As a federal court they were not allowed to judge over whether prop8 is constitutional under the California constitution. In my understanding, only a California state court can rule over that.I guess the question then is: Does this ruling set a prescedent? Does it logically follow that since Prop 8 is unconstitution, that other similar laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are also unconstitutional? It would seem so, but I'd like to hear from some of our local lawyers.The immediate effect will obviously be that 'gay marriages' in California will resume.

In my understanding, since the Federal Court is just one of many Federal Courts and not the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's ruling is not binding on other Federal Courts. They may come to differing rulings, even though I doubt it since IMO the law appears pretty much settled and there doesn't appear to be much room for reasonable disagreement.

The ruling will IMO be a precedent to the extent that the arguments Judge Walker made will have to be considered by any other Federal Court that has to decide over a comparable rule of another state - the plaintiffs challenging comparable laws will make sure of that. His reasoning will probably also be considered if or when a challenge to such a law eventually makes it to the Supreme Court.

The standards for State Constitutions are higher than simply not contradicting the federal Constitution - they must be in compliance with all the parts of the federal Constitution.
Isn't that the same thing?

now that it looks like the case won't be appealed
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but given the recent Ninth Circuit decision to uphold Prop 8 for now, isn't that door still open?

Isn't that the same thing?

Maybe I worded it poorly. I'll try to explain it better.

NOG had suggested that a state Constitution could go further than the federal Constitution, and I was pointing out that it wasn't correct to say that. In going further, even if you did not directly contradict the federal Constitution, you may not be in compliance with it.

Prop 8 is a case in point. Placing an amendment to the CA Constitution stating that marriage is limited to a man and a woman does not contradict the US Constitution, because the US Constitution is silent on the topic of marriages. However, the amendment wasn't in compliance with the US Constitution because it violated the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but given the recent Ninth Circuit decision to uphold Prop 8 for now, isn't that door still open?

If that is the case then I rescind my prior comment. My understanding was that neither Gov. Arnold Swartzenneger nor Attonrey General Mike Brown had any interest in appealing this case, and thus Judge Walker's ruling would stand. As of the end of last week, Walker said that marriages could resume on 19 Aug 2010. Is that no longer the case?

Prop 8 upheld for now (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOiMLmsztmiGlNvjNLQLw4N41h1QD9HL4DRG0)
Gay couples who had been gearing up to get married in California this week had to put their wedding plans on hold once again after a federal appeals court said it first wanted to consider the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban

It's Attorney General Jerry Brown actually.

And the 9th Circuit didn't uphold Prop 8. They decided to stay Judge Walker's order to allow gay marriages to continue until they can rule on the appeal so that there is no confusion (i.e. allow, disallow, allow, disallow nonsense). As I stated above, it is doubtful anyone wanting to appeal will have standing to do so.

And the 9th Circuit didn't uphold Prop 8.
Well, the effect is the same (given that I said "upheld for now"), but yeah, poor wording on my part.

They decided to stay Judge Walker's order to allow gay marriages to continue until they can rule on the appeal so that there is no confusion (i.e. allow, disallow, allow, disallow nonsense). As I stated above, it is doubtful anyone wanting to appeal will have standing to do so.

I don't know why I thought it was Mike, and not Jerry, Brown.

What I don't get is if it is doubtful that anyone having standing to appeal will request an appeal, why is the Circuit Court involved? If there is no appeal, then why would the Circuit Court consider the case? I don't understand the legal process at work here.

The 9th Circuit has to tell those trying to appeal that they have no standing. The 9th Circuit it going to let them argue that they do have standing and what it is.

Maybe I worded it poorly. I'll try to explain it better.

NOG had suggested that a state Constitution could go further than the federal Constitution, and I was pointing out that it wasn't correct to say that. In going further, even if you did not directly contradict the federal Constitution, you may not be in compliance with it.

Prop 8 is a case in point. Placing an amendment to the CA Constitution stating that marriage is limited to a man and a woman does not contradict the US Constitution, because the US Constitution is silent on the topic of marriages. However, the amendment wasn't in compliance with the US Constitution because it violated the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional because it contradicted the US Constitution (equal protection). The Constitution doesn't have to have a specific section for each possible law in order to say 'something' on the issue. I'm not sure I can think of a situation where something wouldn't comply with the Constitution, yet not contradict it, either.

OK, but I think we are arguing semantics at this point. If the US Constitution had a part that read, "you cannot pass a law restircting gay marriage", then yes, the CA Constitution would be directly contradicting the US Constitution.

However, since the US Constitution remains silent on marriage in any form, there was no direct contradiction, but the amendment in question was certainly up for interpretation. That's the primary function of the judicial branch of the federal government - interpreting law. That this judge ruled against the CA Amendment doesn't mean that it was always apparent that this was so - interpretations of law change over time.

For example, it was unthinkable in the 1700s (and even the 1800s for that matter) that women should have the right to vote. (Incidently the 90th anniversary of Women's Suffrage in the US is today.) Up until 1920, women not having the right to vote was not seen as contradictory to the US Constitution, but it is now.

Or take the current immigration law in Arizona. If it was clearly contradicting the US Constitution, there wouldn't be so much debate as to the legality of such of law.

Again, I think we're arguing semantics here. Cases where there is room for interpretation either way typically involve laws that are not necessarily (or at least not obviously so) contradicting the Constitution. If such were the case, they'd never get on the books in the first place. I view such examples as not contradicting, but also not complying with the US Constitution. I see your point, but I view it somewhat differently.

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional because it contradicted the US Constitution (equal protection). The Constitution doesn't have to have a specific section for each possible law in order to say 'something' on the issue. I'm not sure I can think of a situation where something wouldn't comply with the Constitution, yet not contradict it, either.
That's what I was thinking as well, but I also see Aldeth's point. I guess the distinction lies in whether the non-compliance has to do with the actual intent of the proposed law, or whether it is more of a side effect.

I think it has to do with whether you consider the 'contradiction' to be a direct and obvious contradiction or a contradiction of someone's interpretation. Since the entire Constitution seems to be about interpretation these days (go living document!), I figured the latter.

Now, do you think this invisible elephant is more mauve or burgundy? :)

Now, do you think this invisible elephant is more mauve or burgundy? :)

Dang it! There you go with those false dicotomies again - the elephant is obviously pink!

And Splunge pretty much has it right regarding my viewpoint. Side effects, unintended consequences, etc.