Prop 8 Ruling Tuesday by 10 AM

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-02-07 17:46

I don't pretend to know enough about their politics/viewpoints to form an opinion as to how they will rule.

**Yuri-G** · 2012-02-07 17:58

yeah, me neither.

another interesting viewpoint:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07...tes/?hpt=hp_t1

basically this guy says that because the ruling is so narrow and applies only to California, he thinks it will stand and that the Supreme Court won't get involved. specifically, he says:

"Instead of ruling that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in all circumstances, the court issued a narrower ruling. The judges said that the peculiar circumstances in California – a right to same-sex marriage withdrawn by a vote of the public – was unconstitutional... I think the narrow approach in today's decision makes the case less likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The court applies general principles that apply across the United States. Because this case only deals with the unique circumstances in California, I think the Supreme Court is less likely to review it."

**Sepukku** · 2012-02-07 18:17

When the justices are referenced to being liberal or conservative, it usually means in terms of how they view business and its rights and regulations. When it comes to the Constitution's influence on people's lives (civil rights, privacy, lawful police behavior) they all tend to protect the people and their rights. I'd expect a pro-GayMarriage ruling if they did listen to it from a universal standpoint simply because the LGBT community is the next civil rights issue of our time and this would be their 1964.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-02-07 19:23

Even if they take the case and rule against it, it could still only apply to California. In most states, the constitutional amendment is passed before gays have the right to marry - meaning that it does not remove rights they already had. In California, however, the amendment removes already existing rights (since they could marry before the amendment), and that could be the key to the "limited scope" of the ruling.

**Headspace** · 2012-02-07 19:41

@RickSantorum: 7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage.

rights stripped away!

Vuitton · 2012-02-07 19:44

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

Even if they take the case and rule against it, it could still only apply to California. In most states, the constitutional amendment is passed before gays have the right to marry - meaning that it does not remove rights they already had. In California, however, the amendment removes already existing rights (since they could marry before the amendment), and that could be the key to the "limited scope" of the ruling.

Exactly. It is unconstitutional to take away the rights of a group of people without a legitimate reason. Prop 8 isn't forbidding gay marriage. The gays in California had already been given the right to marry. Prop 8 eliminated/removed their right to marry. Two courts have now ruled that doing so is unconstitutional as it violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

Small excerpts from the 80 page affirming opinion:

Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right--the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort." Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

...the People of California must be allowed to defend in federal courts, including on appeal, the validity of their use of the initiative power. Here, however, their defense fails on the merits. The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.

By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that is posessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground. ...the People of California may not, consitent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

It goes on and on and basically tears to shreds every argument the Prop 8 defenders brought in a very methodical and logical method one by one. Which is why it's 80 pages long.

**clobetasol** · 2012-02-07 20:56

The anti-gay movement has to step up their game or this country is fucked.

**Xno Kappa** · 2012-02-07 21:05

Wouldn't allowing same-sex marriages actually help states out with taxes and shit like that too? The whole argument against it always seemed like "who would waste their time with this shit?" type deal to me.

**Psion** · 2012-02-07 21:43

Originally Posted by Hirokei Kiaza

Wouldn't allowing same-sex marriages actually help states out with taxes and shit like that too? The whole argument against it always seemed like "who would waste their time with this shit?" type deal to me.

If nothing else, it would cut costs to our time with having to deal with all this shit cluttering up our court rooms because some people are butthurt that not everyone follows their beliefs.

**Flarega** · 2012-02-07 21:55

And now for an unbiased, scientific study about fags having kids.

**Zetanio** · 2012-02-08 01:51

Originally Posted by Headspace

@RickSantorum: 7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage.

rights stripped away!

I really can't believe this kind of stupid still exists.

I must be sheltered.

**kuronosan** · 2012-02-08 02:31

This country is going down the tubes.

...What tubes?

**AidenCarby** · 2012-02-08 02:37

Carlin reference <3

**Talint** · 2012-02-08 03:10

Originally Posted by clobetasol

The anti-gay movement has to step up their game or this country is fucked.

Fucked right in the ass. AM I RITE?!

**Xno Kappa** · 2012-02-08 07:46

Originally Posted by Talint

Fucked right in the ass. AM I RITE?!

**Ksandra** · 2012-02-08 16:14

I try so hard SO HARD to not get dragged into any kind of debates on facebook. And for the most part, all my friends do the same and/or usually tend to post similar opinions as mine so it's never really an issue. However, one of my fav cousins on my hubby's side posted an article being happy about the ruling, then some dumbfuck I don't even know posted this to respond to her:

Regardless how anyone feels about the topic, whether one is for or against Prop.8, it's about the will of the people and the results of an election. Prop 8 is the only political subject I am neutral about... Unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect "traditional marriage". That prospect underscores the VITAL importance of that election in 2008, and the movement to preserve this countries values. More and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States. The Constitution of the United States begins with "WE the People", it does not begin with "We the Judges"... But, I do love Cameron and Mitchell! lol

I tried to be as nice as I could:

I am so happy for this, you have no idea. Inequality and discrimination is never ever OK, and the government should never let ignorance over-take what should be considered a freedom and a right to people. As a Catholic, I am proud that the judges realize that what makes this country amazing is the freedom to believe what you will, whether that's Christianity, Aethism, Islamic, Agnostic, Judaism, and so on, and that those beliefs should never infringe on those that believe something else. If we only ever followed the majority, then slavery, civil rights of African Americans, Native Americans, Women, etc. would have taken longer to have been resolved. Let these people be happy, they hurt no one in return. Equality for all is probably the most important idea the constitution has given us. In that, the judges followed it to the letter.

We'll see what he says, I probably won't respond. My husband's all for being a dick to the guy though so maybe I'll give him ideas of what to post. XD

[edit] LOL at his response:

It should have been ruled unconstitutional before going on the ballot. Not after one side loses and wants to cry foul after the fact.

/facepalm

**Yuri-G** · 2012-02-08 16:22

much love for you ksandra

this is what I want to hammer into the heads of the so-called Christians who are against gay marriage: it's not about you approving of gay marriage, it's about recognizing that what you believe shouldn't dictate what other people do with their lives.

I loved when Rick Santorum said that "7 million people have been stripped of their rights today." I can't even begin to dissect how wrong that statement is, on multiple levels. yeah, you know what, ass juice boy? they were stripped of a "right." they were stripped of the "right" to enforce their viewpoints upon the rest of the state, the 48% that voted for gay marriage, and the gays themselves. you're fucking goddamn right they were.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-02-08 16:27

you might want to explain to that moron that only laws that are passed go to the court...how does that even make sense that there should be a court ruling BEFORE it is even past - does he/she have any idea wtf a court is?

**Ksandra** · 2012-02-08 16:29

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

you might want to explain to that moron that only laws that are passed go to the court...how does that even make sense that there should be a court ruling BEFORE it is even past - does he/she have any idea wtf a court is?

probably not, no idea. Again it's someone posting on my cousins fb who I've never met, so I don't know anything about them outside of him being a dumbass. but ya I'm trying to plan my response to get him to shut up. I like how he changes points from "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" to "THEY DID IT IN THE WRONG ORDER"

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-02-08 17:36

Just reply "I agree that this bigoted law should never have been passed, but sadly it was. Now that's been corrected, so it's a glorious day."

Thread: Prop 8 Ruling Tuesday by 10 AM

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads