• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

California's Prop 8 ... overturned

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
Judge strikes down Proposition 8, allows gay marriage in California

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco decided Wednesday that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure in California that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs' relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States."

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. . . . Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2 1/2-week trial in January.

Walker's historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3 per cent margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.
I've imagined this happening when I first heard about prop 8 during Election period. What would stop the courts to overrule it (again?)? So I suppose this issue will go from one court to another (unless it gets included somehow in another election?) until it reaches the Supreme Court where the decision will be at last, final.
 
Last edited:

Tucker

Lion Rampant
This is unbelievable. My daughter and her girlfriend are (or now possibly were) flying to Massachusetts next week to be married. I know that a lot of people were personally hurt by Prop. 8. Let's hope that it's never reinstated to pour more salt in their wounds.
 
Last edited:

Bubbles

I ♥ Haters
I don't even know why, this was in the court systems to begin with. Marriage is a universal right, there shouldn't be debates and bills on it.

I bet that weasel Fred Phelps will have something to say about this. If Evangelists really believe that gay marriage is a threat to 'marriage' than they really need to rethink the situation. Gays getting married isn't the threat, but DIVORCE is.
 
Last edited:

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
This is unbelievable. My daughter and her girlfriend are (or now possibly were) flying to Massachusetts next week to be married. I know that a lot of people were personally hurt by Prop. 8. Let's hope that it's never reinstated to pour more salt in their wounds.
You know I was thinking of this implication too. Like those married before that suddenly were told that it's not recognised (anymore?) and people who want to get married when Prop 8 passed then planned to do it elsewhere, only to find out it's ok to get married again. :confused:
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
Here's what I don't get.

1. The federal government tries to define marriage. They are shot down by the courts, saying that it's a state issue.
2. The states define marriage, as was decided was the legal way to do it.
3. The federal government steps in and tells states that it's unconstitutional for them to define marriage.

If it's a state right, then the people of California should have been able to decide what they wanted. And constitutionally, it was ruled that it WAS a state right.

This is just another example of the federal government infringing on state rights. I guess we are going back to step 1 eh?
 

Gavik

Registered Member
Here's what I don't get.

1. The federal government tries to define marriage. They are shot down by the courts, saying that it's a state issue.
2. The states define marriage, as was decided was the legal way to do it.
3. The federal government steps in and tells states that it's unconstitutional for them to define marriage.

If it's a state right, then the people of California should have been able to decide what they wanted. And constitutionally, it was ruled that it WAS a state right.

This is just another example of the federal government infringing on state rights. I guess we are going back to step 1 eh?
It was my understanding that the state could decide how a person gets married and what that means in the state, not who the person can marry.
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
Here's what I don't get.

1. The federal government tries to define marriage. They are shot down by the courts, saying that it's a state issue.
2. The states define marriage, as was decided was the legal way to do it.
3. The federal government steps in and tells states that it's unconstitutional for them to define marriage.

If it's a state right, then the people of California should have been able to decide what they wanted. And constitutionally, it was ruled that it WAS a state right.

This is just another example of the federal government infringing on state rights. I guess we are going back to step 1 eh?
There's nothing to 'get'; it's our system of law. Higher courts have always overturned lower ones and the Federal government obviously retains the last word in matters of constitutionality, by virtue and decree of the Constitution itself. Why does that always and only become a problem for you 'true patriots' when a court decision occurs that's favored by the Left?
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
Why does that always and only become a problem for you 'true patriots' when a court decision occurs that's favored by the Left?
That's what's so funny though. The left was who pushed AGAINST the federal government defining marriage. They said it should be left up to the individual states. Then when one state votes a way they didn't expect suddenly they want the feds to come back in and get involved.

Basically, the exact system they pushed for is what ended up coming back and biting them. :-/
 

Gavik

Registered Member
That's what's so funny though. The left was who pushed AGAINST the federal government defining marriage. They said it should be left up to the individual states. Then when one state votes a way they didn't expect suddenly they want the feds to come back in and get involved.

Basically, the exact system they pushed for is what ended up coming back and biting them. :-/
"A-yup! Dem lefty commies wan' us ta marry faggots right in dis her' state!"

Rights cannot be taken away by a vote. A vote was held that took away the rights of homosexuals to marry. Read the actual decision. The federal government is stepping in to protect the rights of its citizens. There is no legal basis to proclaim heterosexual marriage "more valid" or "superior" to homosexual marriage. This is completely constitutional and any other ruling would have been unAmerican in ever sense of the word.
 

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
I do not know so much of this only very little. But from what I know it is the American politicians not wanting to offend its primarily Christian citizens by saying gay marriage is okay, because we all know the Bible says otherwise...

Just my opinion, maybe Im wrong, as I said I only know little of this.
 
Top