Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Is anyone not happy about the Prop. 8 ruling in California yesterday? I thought it was quite well written and expect it to pass the test of time.

I'm not happy, but in a way that might not be expected. I don't like the fact that ONE judge can just undo with his opinion what the MANY (public) decided they want for their community. What's even worse is that nobody is seeming to notice this aspect of it. What's the point of voting on something if it can just be thrown out because one judge doesn't like it.

This is very similar to the healthcare bill that was passed. Polls showed around 70% of the public were against it, but they rammed their agenda through anyway.

This country is fading fast. Sadly.

Have you ever heard of the phrase the "tyranny of the majority"? There was quite a bit of talk about that way back during the "age of reason", which not coincidentally was also when our constitution was penned. Have you read it lately? With all the talk lately of the constitution and how things are "supposed" to work, I decided to check it out and see how close or far from its words we've strayed. It's not a large document, you can read it in a matter of minutes. It's well worth the read.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut...stitution.html

1. There have been times in our history when a majority of people thought some things were OK when clearly they are not, such as slavery and Jim Crowe laws. Just because a majority is for it does not make it right.

2. The role of the government is to protect the rights of its people. I can see how no harm comes to me because two people of the same gender are married. But to tell people who love each other and want to spend their lives together they can not do that is a violation of their rights.

3. If you feel that gay marriage devalues heterosexual marriage outlaw divorce, and adultery, they cause far more harm to marriage than two people of the same gender living together as spouses.

I'm not happy, but in a way that might not be expected. I don't like the fact that ONE judge can just undo with his opinion what the MANY (public) decided they want for their community. What's even worse is that nobody is seeming to notice this aspect of it. What's the point of voting on something if it can just be thrown out because one judge doesn't like it.

This is very similar to the healthcare bill that was passed. Polls showed around 70% of the public were against it, but they rammed their agenda through anyway.

This country is fading fast. Sadly. Originally Posted by Sternomancer

Comparing the ruling on prop 8 to the healthcare bill is apples and oranges.
So what if the majority vote in favor of slavery? What if the majority vote against interracial marriage? What if the majority vote to burn hobbyists at the stake?

Some of you really pick and choose when it comes to the constitution. You want this government mandate in your life, but not that one. Furthermore, I don't think anyone in THIS forum has the right to pass judgement on homosexual marriage. Seems damned hypocritical to me.

I'm not happy, but in a way that might not be expected. I don't like the fact that ONE judge can just undo with his opinion what the MANY (public) decided they want for their community. What's even worse is that nobody is seeming to notice this aspect of it. What's the point of voting on something if it can just be thrown out because one judge doesn't like it.

This is very similar to the healthcare bill that was passed. Polls showed around 70% of the public were against it, but they rammed their agenda through anyway.

This country is fading fast. Sadly. Originally Posted by Sternomancer

Would you be happier if you knew that the judge who made this ruling is a conservative Republican, nominated by George H. W. Bush?

I can remember the rancorous debate this topic brought out on the old board. There was even a moderator who spoke out against gay marriage and you could just feel the hate.

My point wasn't understood. I don't care about the issue of gay marriage. I don't care what the political affiliation of the judge is. My point is ONE person shouldn't have the power to undo a public decision. A panel of some sort would be more favorable than a single individual.

If you think about it, why does the government have so much interference in marriage issues? Marriage is supposed to be a religious ceremony. What about seperation of Church and State? If you have the right to marry whoever you want, how can the State mandate you need a license? That denotes you need their permission, but Rights don't come from the State.

My point wasn't understood. I don't care about the issue of gay marriage. I don't care what the political affiliation of the judge is. My point is ONE person shouldn't have the power to undo a public decision. A panel of some sort would be more favorable than a single individual.
Originally Posted by Sternomancer

Our time-tested system of checks and balances disagrees with you.

Fuck yeah, leave more ladies for US!! let them do what makes them happy, it has NO effect on my life and takes some of the competition off the market.... AND cuts down on the reproduction rate. Win - Win.

I'm with sternomancer. Bugs the hell out of me that this judge decides what he thinks the law should be. That's for the people to decide. The Constitution set up certain inalienable rights. Does ANYONE seriously believe the framers of the Consitution thought that the right for people to marry someone of their own gender was what they intended to protect? Seriously? And, before we get into the BS about the Constitution "changing" over time, where do those changes come from? Hmm.... it seems like they should come from changes in societal views.... But, wait, isn't that what the judge just decided to go against? So, where does his legal basis really come from? His own view of what is right or wrong. Sounds more like the tyranny of the minority, i.e., one), if you ask me. I have no qualms with gay marriage - if the people want it. But, I have a serious problem with a judge forcing it down the people's throats on the basis of a Constitutional right that clearly is not a right the writers of that very Constitution ever dreamed would exist.

I give the judge's decision about a 40% chance of standing on appeal.

I was not joking. At least read the constitution before you start talking about the framers or their intentions. Seriously, don't talk about it like you know something until till you've read it. Here's the link. What's truly amazing about this document isn't how big or daunting it is, but how simple it is. It's also extremely clear on what it intends. I really gets under my skin when people who clearly haven't read and understood the constitution talk about what it's supposed to mean. To really understand, you should go beyond reading the constitution and read the history behind it.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut...stitution.html

My point wasn't understood. I don't care about the issue of gay marriage. I don't care what the political affiliation of the judge is. My point is ONE person shouldn't have the power to undo a public decision. A panel of some sort would be more favorable than a single individual. Originally Posted by Sternomancer

It is one person. That's why the appeals process doesn't end there. It does go to a panel as a final arbiter - US Supreme Court.

If you think about it, why does the government have so much interference in marriage issues? Marriage is supposed to be a religious ceremony. What about seperation of Church and State? If you have the right to marry whoever you want, how can the State mandate you need a license? That denotes you need their permission, but Rights don't come from the State.

Which religion are you talking about? Christianity, Buddhism, Jewish...Wiccan? It is a social convention that is common to most cultures. It happens to have a religious influence in most cultures. As a convention that is common to many religions and cultures, it cannot be categorized as a religious ceremony (at its core, though most wedding ceremonies are religious). Atheists get married too. As for the State vs. Church - if there were no legal implications with getting married, then you're right, there would be no reason for the State to get involved, and the existence of Prop 8 would be illegal so it would be struck down. If filing joint taxes or qualifying for benefits didn't come with marriage, then two people could go do a keg stand and declare themselves married. As it is there are some legal implications to getting married officially. However, the purpose of Proposition 8 was to create a narrower definition of what a marriage is (by your words, a religious ceremony) to exclude a group of people with specific traits or preferences. So you tell me, did the State of California have any business changing the definition of a 'religious ceremony' or did it have any business excluding a group of people from a 'religious ceremony'?

I'm with sternomancer. Bugs the hell out of me that this judge decides what he thinks the law should be. That's for the people to decide. The Constitution set up certain inalienable rights. Does ANYONE seriously believe the framers of the Consitution thought that the right for people to marry someone of their own gender was what they intended to protect? Seriously? And, before we get into the BS about the Constitution "changing" over time, where do those changes come from? Hmm.... it seems like they should come from changes in societal views.... But, wait, isn't that what the judge just decided to go against? So, where does his legal basis really come from? His own view of what is right or wrong. Sounds more like the tyranny of the minority, i.e., one), if you ask me. I have no qualms with gay marriage - if the people want it. But, I have a serious problem with a judge forcing it down the people's throats on the basis of a Constitutional right that clearly is not a right the writers of that very Constitution ever dreamed would exist.

I give the judge's decision about a 40% chance of standing on appeal. Originally Posted by yunguyus

That is part of the definition of what being a judge is - to interpret the law and apply it in specific situations - to judge. As a member of the judicial branch of the government, he/she is tasked with understanding the constitution and upholding it as supreme law of the land. As such, in this case, he deemed that the law excluding certain people based on their sexual orientation from a social convention enjoyed by most people to be discriminatory. He did not create a law that legalized gay marriage, he did not 'force' this down their throats. All he did was state -this- law, in its current form, excluded a specific group of people from a designation that comes with some legal benefits.

Constitution does spell out some rights that are inalienable, it does not set it up for us. As it states, the Constitution is written with the belief that those rights are born with each individual, thus cannot be given by any document because they exist before the application of the document.

I think 'living document' is the term you're looking for. Though it has had some amendments, it hasn't changed. Do you think the signers of the Constitution thought of every right, circumstance, or law the document would be applied to? Most changes do come from society evolving. That said, the government, especially the branch that is not subject to popular vote, must protect those inalienable rights against popular opinion and votes.

If you really want to think about popular vote, majority, and rights in this case, let me lay it out this way. This proposition was voted in by 52%. That means 48% did not think this proposition was right. Now, this decision was made by the difference of 4% of the voting population. You still think this is the strong 'mandate of the people' that it sounds like when we talk about majority?

You said you have no qualms with gay marriage, if people want it. Do you have qualms with it when they don't?

I think you should read the verdict. This was not overturned on the basis that the judge thought that gay men and women should have the right to marry. It was overturned because it was discriminatory.

This is the same logic that overturned some of the laws and practices mentioned earlier in this thread.

Slavery wasn't abolished because the Constitution says that black people should be free. It doesn't. It says that all should be free (though it was selectively interpreted before).

Proposition 8: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Text of the ruling.

Synopsis: Plaintiffs claimed Prop. 8 was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. During the run-up to the election, Prop. 8 was defined explicitly in religious terms. The government may not enforce religious ends without a secular purpose. Proponents were asked, and promised to demonstrate, what the state's secular interest was in defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. They completely failed to do so. Proponent's sole "expert witness," had edited books on marriage, but held no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology (the most relevant fields when discussing marriage).

Important points: "Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained."

Loving v. Virginia (1967) - U.S. Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional, ending all race based legal restrictions on marriage. The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur (1974) - Ruling that struck down mandatory maternity leave rules. “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Turner v. Safely (1987) - Prisoners were forbidden to marry without permission from the warden. U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners had the right to marry. "The decision to marry is a fundamental right."



Read the ruling. The judge ruled that Prop. 8 was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment in reasoned language. Solely on the basis of legal precedent--that marriage is a fundamental right--he would seem to be correct (note: fundamental right, not Constitutional right). This ruling doesn't seem to be based on "his opinion of what's right or wrong."

P.S. I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to have any more validity as an expert than the proponent's witness.

I give the judge's decision about a 40% chance of standing on appeal. Originally Posted by yunguyus

Sounds like wishful thinking. Most of the legal opinions I've read place the odds much higher.

The Judge also immediately "stayed" his ruling pending appeal and clarification in a lower court.