Kudos to Judge Vaughn Walker...

[Pali]

...for overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage. It's a good step in the right direction.

[KRins]

I'm not sure if returning to the normalcy before people decided to place their religion on the bedrooms of others can be considered much progress, but it does seem the government might be slowly extracting their heads from the backsides...

[Pali]

Well, Walker's ruling goes slightly beyond how things were before in directly labeling the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional - assuming this decision survives the appeals process, it'll serve as precedent and a foundation for challenging the similar laws set up in most states.

[inscribed]

the judge based the decision on the fact that all "notions of gender" are "antiquated and discredited". whether or not his decision was a good one, the legal reasoning used was sloppy at best. i see this getting overturned quickly.

[mmajunkie]

The judge himself is homosexual, so some people are saying it was a conflict of interest in the first place.

[Pali]

Inscribed, you are misinformed.

"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 California

has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and

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."

That's the conclusion of his ruling (available here). It's basis is in the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. Regarding gender issues, again, from the ruling itself:

"Proponents first argue that Proposition 8 is rational

because it preserves: (1) “the traditional institution of marriage

as the union of a man and a woman”; (2) “the traditional social and

legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage”; and (3) “the

traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in

the English language.” Doc #605 at 12-13. These interests relate to maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a man and

a woman for its own sake.

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis

for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The

“ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational.

Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest

apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an

individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally

further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead,

the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose

when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender

roles. See FF 26-27. California has eliminated all legally-

mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage

consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus

enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a

foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic

life.

The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex

couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence

shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality,

because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based

only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender." (emphasis added)

This is only a small part of his ruling, and deals with the first of six purported state interests that supporters of Prop. 8 claimed it had. If you want to criticize a legal ruling, it helps if you have read it and understand it first. EDIT: I would actually be surprised (not to mention very disappointed) if it were overturned. I'm not a lawyer, but to my layman's understanding it seems to have a pretty solid legal foundation.

As for him being homosexual... does a judge being black prevent him from presiding over a case regarding racial discrimination issues? Does a judge being a woman prevent her from presiding over a case regarding gender discrimination issues? Hell, when Walker was originally nominated to the bench, he was strongly opposed by gay rights groups despite him being gay because he was the lawyer for the US Olympic Committee's lawsuit against the Gay Olympics.

[mmajunkie]

I never said I agreed with just for the record, just wanted to mention another portion of things being discussed about regarding this decision.

[Pali]

I was only giving my response to that topic, not accusing you of anything.

[mmajunkie]

I figured you weren't...hence 'just for the record'. Wanted to clarify so I wasn't lumped into the category of thinking the argument had any merit.

I think you'll find we agree on quite a lot of things Pali.

[Pali]

Most people do.

[mmajunkie]

Well, see, now you've gone and said something I don't agree with

[Pali]

You don't think that there are a lot of things that most people agree on, or you don't think that there are a lot of things that most people agree with me on?

[Atebos]

In the end, it is all relative.

[inscribed]

This is only a small part of his ruling, and deals with the first of six purported state interests that supporters of Prop. 8 claimed it had. If you want to criticize a legal ruling, it helps if you have read it and understand it first.

i'm not really sure of your point here, and you don't really say anything to contradict what i said. the statement i quoted, and you so helpfully bolded, could have significant meaning beyond this ruling. its like passing the equal rights amendment without actually passing it. perhaps you should try to understand the ruling a little better yourself?

[Pali]

Your previous post seemed to imply that the judge based his entire decision on solely the position that notions of gender are antiquated and discredited. He did not. He based his decision primarily on the grounds that Prop. 8 discriminates against homosexuals without a legitimate state interest existing for doing so. The statement regarding antiquated notions of gender refers to the proposition that men and women must fulfill different roles in their private lives, which is tantamount to discrimination based on sex, which the government is not allowed to do.

[inscribed]

actually, the government IS allowed to discriminate based on sex (women aren't required to register for the draft, for instance), and is a big reason the ERA was never ratified. again, i'm not arguing whether or not judge made the right decision (i personally feel the government doesn't have any business in any contract between adults, social or otherwise), but the way he worded his ruling, especially with regards to gender equality, is very sloppy, and it won't surprise me to see the decision appealed based on this part alone.

[Pali]

actually' date=' the government IS allowed to discriminate based on sex (women aren't required to register for the draft, for instance)[/quote']

To be honest, I'd love to see a case brought to court on the grounds that this is gender-based discrimination - I think it'd be very interesting to see how it stands up given the progress we've made in regards to gender equality over the last few decades (edit: however, I probably didn't word it the best, but the above statement that the govt. isn't to discriminate based on gender was in the context of how it deals with people's private lives - forced public service is a different area, though I don't think it should be doing so there either). The ERA actually did pass through Congress, and only requires ratification by three more states - at the moment it's basically in legal limbo.

How do you mean that the wording was sloppy? I thought it was very clear - the antiquated and discredited notions of gender referred to are the specific arguments made by the defendants in the case, which are listed under the Findings of Facts section of the ruling.

[The End]

I have the personal belief that marriage is not legal, but religious in background. It is to ensure a safe and stable environment for raising children and advancing society as a whole. If you can't have kids (adoption is not an option in california under current laws) then wtf is marriage other than social status? I fail to see the need for social status to be recognized by the government. If you have a standing power of attorney over your partner then you would get all the legal rights as a married couple (as far as privacy laws and such). No problem with homosexuals or them getting married but the govt benefits revolve around kids you can't have.

[Croyvern]

as an enlightened man I care little for this topic.

However, I would like to point out that Not EVERY citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual. Yet, the Lord sent fire and brimstone to destroy them all. Why? Simply because those who were not homosexual WERE allowing the behavior to become popular in their towns. History repeats itself, we could study it, learn from it, and change it. The trouble remains it is so much easier to say this is not my problem, let them do as they will.

We can not take one passage from the bible and say here is absolute truth, and turn blind eyes to the rest. Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have eyes see.

I mean no offense to anyone, but I tend to agree with the end on this one. I have been married for twenty years, and the only reason same sex partners want it, is because they can not have it. I think they should allow the marriages and then deny them divorces, because that would be funny.

[Pali]

I fail to see the need for social status to be recognized by the government. If you have a standing power of attorney over your partner then you would get all the legal rights as a married couple (as far as privacy laws and such).

The problem is that while it is certainly possible to obtain all the legal rights that come with marriage without getting married, it is an incredibly painstaking and expensive process to do so. You can walk into a courthouse and get a marriage license for very little money and in very short order - going through the other legal procedures to obtain the same rights will cost thousands and take a very long time.

And did you seriously just say that you think that people who can't have kids shouldn't get married, or at least that it's pointless for them to do so? My dad remarried a few years ago, and I'm pretty sure my stepmom is post-menopause - you can't think of any reasons that they might have wanted to get married? Should people be ending their marriages once their children have reached adulthood, because there's no longer a need for a child-raising environment? And whether adoption is an option in Cali under current laws or not, do you think that homosexuals can't raise kids and/or wouldn't want to?

And Croyvern... you have no idea how much it made me laugh for you to follow "as an enlightened man..." with Christian mythology. Thank you.

[Croyvern]

Just because I read the bible does not mean I agree with what is written, or the Ideas of the MEN who wrote it. Besides when I quote bhuddist sayings Gradrel makes fun of me. I did end with I think they should allow the marriages... Glad someone laughed it was obviously funny to me.

[Pali]

However' date=' I would like to point out that Not EVERY citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual. Yet, the Lord sent fire and brimstone to destroy them all. Why? Simply because those who were not homosexual WERE allowing the behavior to become popular in their towns. [b']History repeats itself, we could study it, learn from it, and change it. The trouble remains it is so much easier to say this is not my problem, let them do as they will.

We can not take one passage from the bible and say here is absolute truth, and turn blind eyes to the rest. Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have eyes see.

I have to wonder how you could make this post and have the intended meaning be anything other than "tolerating homosexuality got two cities wiped out by God and it might happen again if we repeat that mistake".

Tolerating homosexuality does not get cities destroyed by vengeful deities. There is no need to bring the Bible into discussions regarding how to run our society today, especially when the government is prohibited from acting based on religious notions.

[Croyvern]

I have to wonder how you could make this post and have the intended meaning be anything other than "tolerating homosexuality got two cities wiped out by God and it might happen again if we repeat that mistake".

Tolerating homosexuality does not get cities destroyed by vengeful deities. There is no need to bring the Bible into discussions regarding how to run our society today, especially when the government is prohibited from acting based on religious notions.

Simple really, I do not live in a city for one. Because I think the human race wil eventually "Sodom"ize itself and for FAR dumber reasons. I was trying to play the devil's advocate, well I guess in this case, God's advocate. Truth is it will not matter. For the same reason that states can not overturn federal laws reguarding drinking, California will fail on this one. Just as Colorado failed trying to change laws about Pot. It will come down to the bill of rights, and freedom of sexual preferance was NOT garaunteed. This means a portion of the population is quite literally suffering from the old "taxation without representation" thing. And when it goes to the supreme court that will be what overturns it. Not a judge who's motives are questionable. JMO

[Pali]

Unlike in the cases of alcohol and other drugs, there is a difference here in that there are no existing federal laws against same-sex marriage, at least none that I am aware of. Now, sexual preference may not have been a guaranteed freedom (edit: but then, for a long time, neither were racial equality or women having voting rights - it's not like we can't change the law to make it one), but there needs to be a demonstrable secular benefit for the government to pass a law, and as Judge Walker pointed out there aren't any in this case.

How are Walker's motives questionable? Just because he happens to be homosexual? As I said before, should we question the motives of black judges if they preside over a racial discrimination case, or female judges in cases of sexual discrimination?

[KRins]

I don't really see the point is not allowing people a social status... yes it would allow certain people access to their significant other's health insurance and what not... but I mean this is practically as stupid as trying to ban people from listing themselves in a homosexual relationship on facebook. Just because they don't advertise themselves as a "married homosexual couple" does not mean they do not have the same love and support for each other or that they would be any less successfully married than roughly half of the heterosexual marriages that you know... are in sickness and in health until death do them part... Marriage as a whole is a shade of its former meaningfulness... people get divorced like we check our PK ranges. If allowing legal homosexual marriages can somehow make heterosexual marriages stronger, more faithful, and longer lasting I'm all for it. Until then, homosexual relationships will be just like smoking pot... whole **** ton of people do it, you just don't know who yet... not that is your business anyway nosy britches.