Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Judge strikes down Prop 8
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2010 :  20:59:02  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The judgment is in, and it's good news to everyone who believes in marriage equality. Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that California's voter-passed Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of two people of opposite gender, is unconstitutional:
(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution -- handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 136-page opinion, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

. . .
Of course, the anti-gay forces will appeal, and this matter won't finally be decided until the Supreme Court hears it. But this is a good start, in my opinion.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/04/2010 23:10:11

podcat
Skeptic Friend

435 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2010 :  21:50:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send podcat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Update: http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/breaking-federal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8

“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.

-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2010 :  21:57:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Good news! But (from the same article):
In a separate order, Walker also granted supporters of Proposition 8 a temporary stay, which stops his decision from taking immediate effect. They had argued, prior to his ruling, that same-sex marriages would be performed soon after his decision and could be complicated by rulings and appeals farther down the legal road.
This makes sense, though. It's better to not have a few months' worth of marriages again nullified by the appeals court. Like already happened. Get the legal mumbo-jumbo worked out first. That seems like a better idea, even though it'll leave some couples pissed off and alienated in the meantime.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2010 :  23:21:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Good news! But (from the same article):
In a separate order, Walker also granted supporters of Proposition 8 a temporary stay, which stops his decision from taking immediate effect. They had argued, prior to his ruling, that same-sex marriages would be performed soon after his decision and could be complicated by rulings and appeals farther down the legal road.
This makes sense, though. It's better to not have a few months' worth of marriages again nullified by the appeals court. Like already happened. Get the legal mumbo-jumbo worked out first. That seems like a better idea, even though it'll leave some couples pissed off and alienated in the meantime.
The same-sex marriages that were celebrated during the time they were legal in California were never nullified, despite Prop 8. Especially considering that since same-sex marriage is perfectly legal now in five states, I can't see how a few hundred or a few thousand more would in any way be a negative to California or the nation, even if Prop 8 is ultimately upheld.

But that's not how Judge Walker sees it, obviously. The Supremes will probably have to rule on this before same-sex couples can again solemnize their relationships in California. In the meantime, all those people are being denied a right that opposite-sex people are granted. Well, three-quarters of a cup is still a lot better than an empty one.

Correction to the above: Judge Walker's "stay" on the enforcement of his ruling is a temporary stay, lasting just until Friday, according to the article podcat linked to.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/04/2010 23:29:02
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2010 :  23:24:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Anyone want to bet what the Robert's Court does with this?

The "Strict Constitutionalists" will look long and hard to find a word about gay marriage in the U. S. Constitution - so what an opportunity to usurp the powers of the Congress and legislate from the bench on this matter!

There is little doubt in my mind as to what the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Kennedy gang of five will do with respect to pro-gay legislation. Beholden as they are to the conservative Christian crackpot coalition, this hopeful progrssive decision today will be short-lived, I fear.

A heavy excess of cholesterol building up in the rotund Scalia's (74) arteries is about the only hope for real justice to return to the U.S. Alas, Ginsberg is 77. But at least she's slender!
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  00:20:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I feel like watching some Fox News just to see their heads explode. 8)

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  01:50:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Anyone want to bet what the Robert's Court does with this?

The "Strict Constitutionalists" will look long and hard to find a word about gay marriage in the U. S. Constitution - so what an opportunity to usurp the powers of the Congress and legislate from the bench on this matter!

There is little doubt in my mind as to what the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Kennedy gang of five will do with respect to pro-gay legislation. Beholden as they are to the conservative Christian crackpot coalition, this hopeful progrssive decision today will be short-lived, I fear.

A heavy excess of cholesterol building up in the rotund Scalia's (74) arteries is about the only hope for real justice to return to the U.S. Alas, Ginsberg is 77. But at least she's slender!

The Roberts court will uphold this ruling. Remember, Scalia was a major voice and if I recall, the author of the Hustler v Falwell decision. Unless he has changed dramatically the equal protection argument should be extremely compelling to him (and hopefully other conservatives). I remain hopefully that SCOUTS will make the right call.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  04:19:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

There is little doubt in my mind as to what the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Kennedy gang of five will do with respect to pro-gay legislation.
Which of them ruled which way in the Texas sodomy case?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  05:46:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The Supremes will probably have to rule on this before same-sex couples can again solemnize their relationships in California.


Usually that would only be gay couples...unless at least one of the lesbian partners has an attachment or other implement.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  06:36:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by bngbuck

There is little doubt in my mind as to what the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Kennedy gang of five will do with respect to pro-gay legislation.
Which of them ruled which way in the Texas sodomy case?
To answer my own question: Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor were pro-sodomy, while Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas were against it. So cross Kennedy out of the "gang of five" on the gay issues, maybe?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  06:39:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

The same-sex marriages that were celebrated during the time they were legal in California were never nullified, despite Prop 8. Especially considering that since same-sex marriage is perfectly legal now in five states, I can't see how a few hundred or a few thousand more would in any way be a negative to California or the nation, even if Prop 8 is ultimately upheld.
Point taken.
Correction to the above: Judge Walker's "stay" on the enforcement of his ruling is a temporary stay, lasting just until Friday, according to the article podcat linked to.
Yeah, but the stay is only temporary if the anti-gay lawyers fail to convince Walker that it should last through the entire appeals process. They've got until tomorrow to submit motions to that effect. If they fail to put forth a good rationale, the stay will be lifted.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  08:43:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave.....

So cross Kennedy out of the "gang of five" on the gay issues, maybe?
'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished! Kennedy can be a swinger. If we could figure out who bribes him, it would help. Justices are paid peanuts by big-money standards.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  09:08:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ed Brayton thinks that Kennedy is going to ultimately be the decision-maker on this one. He also pointed to Romer v. Evans, which was decided with the same 6-3 split of justices.

Ed also quoted part of the ruling in the Prop 8 case:
At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Counsel replied that the inquiry was "not the legally relevant question," but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."
The defendants had said that gay marriage would hurt the state's interest in producing children. Here, basically, the judge is asking how gay marriage could stop people from making babies, and the defendants were forced to admit that they don't have any clue. So much for a rational basis for the law.

The full ruling is available as a PDF file.

bngbuck wrote:
Justices are paid peanuts by big-money standards.
Judge Judy makes 100 times what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes. It sickens me that the citizenry's values are upside-down like that.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  10:16:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Judge Judy makes 100 times what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes. It sickens me that the citizenry's values are upside-down like that.


It's not the citizens who dictate those kind of salaries. Judge Judy in addition to simply being a judge also helps sell everything from breakfast cereal to douche. That's where the big money comes from.

Do you think guys like Brett Favre who are grown men playing a child's game are really worth $16 million a year simply because they can throw a ball?

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  10:51:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Originally posted by HalfMooner
The Supremes will probably have to rule on this before same-sex couples can again solemnize their relationships in California.


Usually that would only be gay couples...unless at least one of the lesbian partners has an attachment or other implement.
I suspect you're thinking I used the word, "sodomize." They can do that with or without Prop 8.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2010 :  10:54:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
All this talk about sodomizing is making me hungry.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.89 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000