Prop 8 Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

[rwarn17588]

I have been in this legal business for a number of years now and I can tell you that conceptually it is very difficult to comprehend how one person can throw away the will of the people.

So you tacitly admit that you can comprehend how the will of the people can be overruled, correct?

[guido911]

So you tacitly admit that you can comprehend how the will of the people can be overruled, correct?

What kind of a dumb point are you trying to make? The "will of the people" gets overruled quite frequently. It was Arizona a couple weeks back, and now this this week.

My whole simple point was to point out to Conan that as a practical matter it is not one judge trumping the will of millions. There is a check and balance in the federal court system, the appellate process, which very very frequently reverses the judgments of district courts. Then there is the Supreme Court, which as most know, reverses 9th Circuit decisions often.

[Cats Cats Cats]

The "will of the people" people must hold a lot of animosity towards Lincoln.

[guido911]

The "will of the people" people must hold a lot of animosity towards Lincoln.

If you mean the "south", then you sure are right. Some little war or something happened when the people (rightly or wrongly) didn't like how they were being treated by government.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I guess it's a toss up for guido.  However I think Ron Paul had the right idea.

[azbadpuppy]

Sometimes the courts must rule against the will of the people because it is their job to do so. The lawsuit brought against the state of California by the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Prop 8, which denies their marriage rights- the same marriage rights granted under the law in California to their opposite-sex counterparts.

The judge clearly and decisively ruled that Prop 8 indeed violates the due process clause and the equal protection rights in the US Constitution. He also stated that by merely disagreeing with or disliking a person's sexuality, for whatever reason, is not a "proper basis on which to legislate".

Don't forget that the California Supreme Court first ruled that denying same sex marriage was unlawful, hence the reason Prop 8 was initiated by those opposing the high court ruling, mostly fueled by religious groups and their interests.

The ensuing campaign was filled with millions of dollars worth of misleading TV ads paid for by the supporters of Prop 8 , who lied to the people of Califonia, claiming that if prop 8 failed to pass, California teachers would be forced to teach a 'homosexual agenda' in public schools, ministers could get arrested for refusing to perform gay marriages, churches would lose their tax exempt status, and a whole slew of other lies. And, as we have seen so many times by those pushing a moral, right wing conservative agenda, the fear mongering worked like a charm, without a shred of truth to any of those claims made in the 'scare tactic' commercials.

But even putting the questionable campaign aside, the fact of the matter is clear: If the country only ever ruled by the 'will of the people', we might not have passed the civil rights act of 1964, since at that time the vast majority of people in the US disagreed with interracial marriage, and would likely have voted this act down had it been put to a referendum. This is why a 'popular vote' should never be used to determine fundamental civil rights issues. This is why we have the constitution.

[Conan71]

Like I care a whit what Huffington Post says. And I don't care about the fickle strands of public perception, because I'm a lot more interested in reality.

I think you are mis-understanding my point: it's simply how the public can percieve this as the tired saw of judicial activism and one individual nullifying the will of millions.  

You may well be right about Judge Walker, there's some serious irony here.  Gay rights groups tried hard to block his nomination and succeeded twice, yet he came through in a big way for them:

"The second issue was that as a lawyer in private practice he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics.

Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/reagan-appointed-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/

Fickle strands of public perception is what elects people and gets votes fer and agin measures like Prop 8.  Those strands are made up of bits and pieces of reality, not the whole enchilada.

You have got to realize that people like us who frequently debate and analyze political issues down to the nano-detail don't make up the core of voters, it's the ones who read a headline and two paragraphs, catches a talking head program on Faux or MSNBC or listens to MSM and form opinion on a lot of filtered summaries.

[azbadpuppy]

Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination."

Ironic indeed.

Hmmm....Reagan tried to appoint him first, but was blocked by liberals, twice, then finally appointed to the bench by Bush I.

And now you have the usual suspects trying to demonize Judge Walker as a liberal activist judge. Hilarious.

[rwarn17588]

I think you are mis-understanding my point: it's simply how the public can percieve this as the tired saw of judicial activism and one individual nullifying the will of millions. 

...

You have got to realize that people like us who frequently debate and analyze political issues down to the nano-detail don't make up the core of voters, it's the ones who read a headline and two paragraphs, catches a talking head program on Faux or MSNBC or listens to MSM and form opinion on a lot of filtered summaries.

In this case, I don't think it's going to have much of an effect on voters one way or another. Gay rights has become more favored by the general public in recent years, and support for it will continue to grow as old people with old prejudices continue to die out.

And I think this issue is going to be very small potatoes compared to many other meaty ones (economy, war, jobs, education, taxes, deficits, etc.). Once gay marriage is allowed nationwide (and it's coming eventually), the country as a whole will generally embrace it and then wonder what all the fuss was about.

[rwarn17588]

What kind of a dumb point are you trying to make?

I was asking a question, grumpy. At least you answered.

[guido911]

I was asking a question, grumpy. At least you answered.

All right, my bad. I thought you were trying to be a smart@ss or something by asking a question that I thought had an obvious answer.

[Conan71]

In this case, I don't think it's going to have much of an effect on voters one way or another. Gay rights has become more favored by the general public in recent years, and support for it will continue to grow as old people with old prejudices continue to die out.

And I think this issue is going to be very small potatoes compared to many other meaty ones (economy, war, jobs, education, taxes, deficits, etc.). Once gay marriage is allowed nationwide (and it's coming eventually), the country as a whole will generally embrace it and then wonder what all the fuss was about.

Unless President Obama quits fence-sitting, it could result in a backlash by gay activists who are starting to demand he should support gay marriage.  I wonder how Hillarity feels about it.

"President Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, even though he agrees with a district judge that California's ban against it is unconstitutional, a White House adviser said today.

Supporters of Proposition 8 -- a measure approved by California voters in 2008 that bans same-sex marriage -- plan to appeal yesterday's ruling, and it may reach the Supreme Court.


"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," White House adviser David Axelrod said today on MSNBC.

He noted, however, that the president has always opposed Proposition 8.

"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time -- he felt it was divisive, he felt that it was mean spirited," Axelrod said. "We reiterated that position yesteday."

The court battle over Proposition 8 could thrust the debate over same-sex marriage back onto the national stage and compel the president to take a less ambivalent position.

"His position on Prop. 8 has always been clear. What has not been clear is how he squares his position for equality with his refusal to embrace actual equality in marriage," Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Politico. "That is unclear, increasingly unclear, and there's no good reason to explain it."

Americablog, the liberal blog with a special emphasis on gay rights, has started a petition asking Mr. Obama to fully support same-sex marriage.

"In the wake of today's historic court decision on Proposition 8, it's time for President Obama to support full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples," the petition says. "You simply do not support equality for gay and lesbian couples if you don't support letting them marry."'

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012842-503544.html

[guido911]

I think Axelrod competently and thoroughly explained Obama's position on this issue:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/painful-axelrod-tries-to-explain-obamas-non-position-on-prop-8/

[azbadpuppy]

There's room to say that Walker was biased if he is gay.  Had a hetero judge ruled to keep it intact, don't you think there would be room for people to call that judge biased and activism from the right?  He may well have approached it totally neutral, but this gives leverage to those who will call this activism.

But that is such a weak argument.

First of all, Walker has never confirmed or denied his sexuality publicly. He is not 'Openly Gay' as all the media outlets have been reporting, like that being 'open' is somehow more threatening, or automatically makes him political about it. He hasn't said anything about it because it is (or at least should be) a non-issue.

Also, if the argument is that a gay judge shouldn't be allowed to preside over this case due to personal bias, then why should a straight judge be allowed? Don't straight people have just as much at stake from the outcome, since supposedly the sanctity of their straight marriages are being threatened? The moral fiber of the country is presumed to come completely undone if the gays are allowed to marry, right?

I guess women judges shouldn't hear abortion cases, black judges have no business hearing discrimination cases, and religious judges are out when it comes to first amendment cases?

The argument is truly absurd.

[Conan71]

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?

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm simply putting out the hypotheticals. If GLBT want the same benefits of marriage as heteros have I'm good with that so long as they aren't seeking preferential treatment.