Prop 8 Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

[rwarn17588]

But it's not a weak argument to fundies who feel energized about an appeal.

The fundies ought to direct more of their energies ensuring that the legal team has fundamental things such as evidence, instead of pointing at miniature unicorns.

I'm still absolutely flummoxed by the defense team offering no evidence to bolster its case. That's Trial 101. That leads me to believe one of two things:

1) The legal team is incompetent; or

2) The legal team could find no credible evidence to support its case.

If it's No. 2, I'd have to think the Prop 8 folks have a tough hill to climb at the appellate level.

And that leads me to this: If the judge truly was openly gay (as has been alleged), why didn't the defense team file a motion to get another judge? Was is because the team consisted of a bunch of incompetents? Or was it simply that such a motion would ultimately be a silly argument?

After all, you had the Prop 8 people making the argument that gay marriages would harm heterosexual marriages. By that thought, wouldn't a heterosexual judge have an inherent bias against the gay marriages?

[azbadpuppy]

But it's not a weak argument to fundies who feel energized about an appeal.

Unless there was an avowed asexual hearing the case, it's impossible to say theres 100% impartiality. Can you honestly say, weak or not, had this been ruled the other way by a church-going hetero judge that opponents of Prop 8 wouldn't be screaming bias?

There will always be a losing side, but to use Judge Walker's sexuality against him is nothing more than sour grapes.

Judge Walker's ruling is the correct one, because it is based on facts. If the supporters of Prop 8 want to place blame, they should look to the defense team. They presented an extremely weak case with some absurd arguments, and only one witness, who was easily discredited. Apparently they had a hard time finding anyone credible that would support their nonsense. There is no one to blame for the outcome but themselves.

[we vs us]

It's funny.  I heard this bubble up again and again during coverage of the ruling, and that's the "why should one judge overturn majority rule" meme.  It's weird that so many people should all want to attack the (time-honored, Constitutional) process rather than the substance of the ruling.  And do it in such exact language across the country, no less!

I came away wondering if someone was broadcasting that question to certain antennae around the nation just in time to be asked on every news channel, call in radio show, and on line chatroom available.

I also came away wondering 1) who specifically generates these messages, and 2) what the messages are meant to convey.  And I couldn't help but see, by attacking the process rather than the substance, it's another brick in the argument that our government -- and some of our founding processes -- are fundamentally flawed and need to be revamped/overturned. It dovetails nicely with the "do-nothing Congress" meme, and the "out-of-control executive" meme, though also seems to mesh with the opposite theorem, which has the Democratic Congress as a Marxist buzzsaw and the President as an incompetent professor who's in over his head. In either case, "why would the judge overturn the will of the majority?" is meant specifically to question how we make decisions, not whether the decision was correct on the merits.

It's not "is this a good decision," but it's "our method of decision-making is broken." 

[azbadpuppy]

Ted Olson says it better than anyone. Clear, concise, to the point, and best of all- no screaming and yelling. 

[guido911]

Ted Olson says it better than anyone. Clear, concise, to the point, and best of all- no screaming and yelling. 

I have always liked this guy. As you may know, his wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

[azbadpuppy]

I have always liked this guy. As you may know, his wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Wow, I did not know that. Interesting info.

[guido911]

Homosexuals marriages on hold pending the conclusion of the appeal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/national/a022838D10.DTL

[swake]

Homosexuals marriages on hold pending the conclusion of the appeal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/national/a022838D10.DTL

I heard on the radio this morning that the stay was extended to keep the case at the appellate level. If the stay was allowed to expire then Prop 8 supporters could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court right away. I guess I am confused, this is obviously headed to the Supreme Court anyway why keep it at the appellate level? Or is this just the Appeals Court wanting their say before it heads up? This seems like a pointless and time/cost consuming step for both sides.

[nathanm]

I heard on the radio this morning that the stay was extended to keep the case at the appellate level. If the stay was allowed to expire then Prop 8 supporters could have directly appealed to the Supreme Court right away.

I don't think that's the case. From what I can tell, the stay is based upon the idea that there might be confusion as to the validity of any marriages performed after the stay expired if the ruling was eventually overturned.

[cannon_fodder]

The stay is primarily to stop couples from getting married asap and then having to deal with those down the road.  If the stay was lifted the prop 8 proponants might request a stay directly from the Supreme Court, but i don't think the court would take it up directly.  better to stay a ruling that effects millions of people's lives than to have to void marriages later... which i don't think would happen.

The opinion was well written and carefully spelled out.

1) Marriage is both a civil contract recognized by the State and a religious union
2) The State has no interest in directing the religious union and has not and will not mandate any reilgious group perform any union
3) Marriage is a fundamental right established by case law (primarily from the inter racial marriage cases)
4) To deny a group a fundamental right the State must (at least) have a rational basis to treat one group different than another, and that reason must address a compelling governmental interest.  [it must pass a stricter test, but if it fails this lesser test the more strict test is moot .
5) The reasons given to treat homosexual unions different than same sex unions are:
   a) Religion - which is not a proper argue for the government to consider and was not directly posed to the court
   b) Tradition - a litany of case law lays out that tradition alone is not reason enough to treat a group different
   c) Procreation - no state has ever mandated procreation as a condition for marriage, no license is revoked due to lack of procreation or an inability to procreate, birth control is legal in marriages, and marriage is not required for procreation.  Ergo, it is not a primarily reason for marriage or for the State to hold an interest in marriage.
   d) Stable Families - the evidence presented in the Court indicated that homosexual couples have the same stability rate as heterosexual couples.  Presumably the divorce rate would be about the same as any other couple.  Which, in and of itself, serves only to prove that marriage among heterosexual couples isnt all that sacred...
   e) Think of the Children - evidence presented indicates that biological relation has nothing to do with the ability to raise well adjusted children.  The most pressing issue to reach that criteria is the presence of a stable family.  which would be increased by homosexual marriages.  No evidence was presented that indicated homosexual couples would be lesser parents than a heterosexual couple.
   f) Fear - the stereotype of homosexuals as criminals and child molesters, or otherwise something to be afraid of was relied upon in the campaign ads of the prop 8 group. The fear of having ones church sued because they refuse to perform gay marriages was used also.  No evidence was offered and no evidence exists that indicated that homosexuals pose any greater threat to children or crime in general than anyone else.  The judge specifically says that no cause of action exists against religious institutions for not performing any marriage because of gay marriage.
   g) seperate but equal - civil unions are good enough, gay people don't need to get married.  But seperate is never equal... otherwise you wouldn't have 2 seperate laws making them mutual exclusive forms of union and this fight wouldn't exist.
   h) The will of the people - they put it to a vote, and the people voted to ban gay marriage.   Simply put:  you can't put someone elses rights to a vote.
6) The Court set the criteria relied upon with great detail, and failed the measure even under the weakest standard.
7) The Court carefully weighed the evidence and assigned it value in great detail.
The Court carefully cited the relevant portions of law.
9) The Court determined that the State had no rational basis to treat homosexual couples different than a heterosexual couple.

In my discussions with people and after reading this discussion, I have not heard a legitamate reason.  Most reasons given can be stuffed into a catagory specifically addressed in this case.  I'd be interested in hearing one that doesn't argue religion, conflict with existing law, and is a legitimate governmental interest.

It appears by all accounts that homosexual marriage actually has the same benefits for society as heterosexual marriage.  It results in stable relationships, a family in which to raise children, and a populace that is generally easier to govern (married people move less, get arrested less, keep jobs longer, have more disposable income, etc.).  Unless the judge incorrectly cited law, this ruling stands.  I'd be hard pressed to see a circuit going another way and this getting to the Supreme Court until the circuit puts a stay in effect and the Court is asked to address it (I'd still guess they refuse it the first time).  Once gay marriage is in place for a few years no one will care anymore... why should they?

/disclaimer: I'm not gay, but have many gay friends.  I read the full case and agree with the opinion, but personally I was in favor of gay marriage being legalized anyway.

[custosnox]

I think this is the best line out of the opinion

"Presumably the divorce rate would be about the same as any other couple.  Which, in and of itself, serves only to prove that marriage among heterosexual couples isnt all that sacred..."

[Townsend]

I bet the TW posters are having fits.

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Carrie-Underwood-supports-same-sex-marriage/cMdagaVvgEmqjhRSdoNl7w.cspx?rss=2448&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Oklahoma native and country superstar Carrie Underwood supports same sex marriage.

In an interview with 'The Independent' newspaper, Underwood says she was raised Baptist and attends a gay friendly church and supports marriage equality.

Underwood says she doesn't believe she has the right to judge anyone, "I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."

Underwood is a Checotah native and won the fourth season of American Idol in 2005. Billboard magazine named her 'County music's Reigning Queen' in 2012.