Poll

Do you agree with the ruling?

Yes70%70% - 42
No20%20% - 12
No opinion10%10% - 6
Total: 60
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.

It was also a victory for former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and attorney David Boies, who represented opposing sides in 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election challenge and filed the lawsuit last year in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.

The verdict was the second in a federal gay marriage case to come down in recent weeks. A federal judge in Massachusetts decided last month the state's legally married gay couples had been wrongly denied the federal financial benefits of marriage because of a law preventing the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.

The plaintiffs in the California case presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.

Olson delivered the closing argument for opponents of the ban. He told Judge Walker that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.

Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."

In an unusual move, the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.

That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 … riage-ban/

Really? That's your defense? Way to disparage every well adjusted and successful person in history that was adopted. Idiots.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6642

Good. I never really understood how Prop 8 even got passed in the People's Gay Republic of Mexifornia anyway.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5251|foggy bottom

ghettoperson wrote:

Good. I never really understood how Prop 8 even got passed in the People's Gay Republic of Mexifornia anyway.
mormons
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Good. I never really understood how Prop 8 even got passed in the People's Gay Republic of Mexifornia anyway.
mormons
Do people from the High Desert look like this?

https://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:jK5Lmy3hPOzXOM:https://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/anh_tuskenraider_pd.jpg&t=1
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5251|foggy bottom
https://www.cswu.cz/prequels/images/jawas.jpg
Tu Stultus Es
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5987|Truthistan
I like the highlighted quote. seems they qualified their earlier statements after the pro-prop witnesses conceded the point


But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.


Anyway, its just the continuation of the MLK march toward individualism and away from paternalism.

Makes me wonder how much money could be saved is we rided ourselves of paternalistic policies and just how much time is wasted by people living in the world of "ought"

Next step is to see what the bigots on SCOTUS will do to ruin this "progess"
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6515|...

On the question of gay marriage I personally don't care ... mm ff mf.

But separating belief from process ...

I did think it was odd that a law was passed by a popular vote and a group of people in the voting minority who did agree with the outcome rallied to petition. If it had not passed and an angry group of jawas protested it, how would it have been viewed? As a bunch of biggots? Haters gonna hate?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

jsnipy wrote:

On the question of gay marriage I personally don't care ... mm ff mf.

But separating belief from process ...

I did think it was odd that a law was passed by a popular vote and a group of people in the voting minority who did agree with the outcome rallied to petition. If it had not passed and an angry group of jawas protested it, how would it have been viewed? As a bunch of biggots? Haters gonna hate?
Passing a law discriminating against a certain segment of the populace so long as their behavior is not of negative consequence to others is bigoted, yes. I view any unwarranted attempt to control the thoughts and actions of others (again, as long as those actions do not harm others) as irreconcilable with acceptable behavior.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
Frankly, I find it ridiculous that so many people were swayed by the Mormon church. Mormons are one step up from the Amish on the evolutionary ladder.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6515|...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Frankly, I find it ridiculous that so many people were swayed by the Mormon church. Mormons are one step up from the Amish on the evolutionary ladder.
I agree, I think they should disbanded.
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|6836|Reykjavík, Iceland.
https://www.naquadah.co.uk/data/thumbs/2009/07/sp-0910-08-v6.jpg-width-480-quality-85.jpg
tbh
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6644|USA
I agree with the over turning of the ban.. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage by accident than any same sex couple could do on purpose...Not to even mention same sex marriage is none of our business.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

lowing wrote:

I agree with the over turning of the ban.. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage by accident than any same sex couple could do on purpose...Not to even mention same sex marriage is none of our business.
inb4liberalsenteringthreadtoarguewithlowingonthis
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6642

I think most people know by now that lowing is pretty consistent on this stuff.
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5694|College Park, MD

lowing wrote:

I agree with the over turning of the ban.. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage by accident than any same sex couple could do on purpose...Not to even mention same sex marriage is none of our business.
earth will now detonate
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6461

lowing wrote:

I agree with the over turning of the ban.. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage by accident than any same sex couple could do on purpose...Not to even mention same sex marriage is none of our business.
But if lowing didn't vote no, then who did
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6644|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

I agree with the over turning of the ban.. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage by accident than any same sex couple could do on purpose...Not to even mention same sex marriage is none of our business.
inb4liberalsenteringthreadtoarguewithlowingonthis
they will just because I said it. lol
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6644|USA

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I agree with the over turning of the ban.. Heterosexual couples have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage by accident than any same sex couple could do on purpose...Not to even mention same sex marriage is none of our business.
earth will now detonate
Sorry to disappoint, I have always felt what couples do is no business of govt. as long as it does not hinder the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of others...I am consistent on these matters. I am against abortion, however I feel the govt. has no place in a woman's life to tell them what they are to do with their own bodies. Now if ya wanna argue, I also believe govt. has no right to interfere in a persons decision to want to die.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6642

Unlike the large majority of the Republican party, Lowing isn't a hypocrite. When he says he believes in small government, he actually does - rather than small government, except for a few cases where it upsets our religion.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina
Fuck the religious cunts who want to control what other people do in their personal lives.

...and yes, this ruling was where true "common sense" comes into play.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5251|foggy bottom
keep puffing his ego why dont ya
Tu Stultus Es
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6644|USA

eleven bravo wrote:

keep puffing his ego why dont ya
you wanna even troll when someone says something half way nice about me? What pinned up hate you must have. lol
Graphic-J
The Artist formerly known as GraphicArtist-J
+196|6118|So Cal
Prop 8:
Law is created > Appealed > Overturned > Appealed > Overturned ... never ending circle

It's weird that a judge can overturn an 'amendment'... gay agenda or not.
https://i44.tinypic.com/28vg66s.jpg
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

Graphic-J wrote:

Prop 8:
Law is created > Appealed > Overturned > Appealed > Overturned ... never ending circle

It's weird that a judge can overturn an 'amendment'... gay agenda or not.
It's called Civil Rights.  Homosexuals are a federally protected class, so therefore any state laws, amendments or not, are ultimately subject to federal laws and what qualifies as discrimination.

This is also why Don't Ask, Don't Tell is being repealed -- it's not a gay agenda, it's an agenda of equality.  Yet sadly, many racial minorities don't support the rights of other minorities like homosexuals, because of religious agendas....

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-04 17:11:23)

Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6467|Foothills of S. Carolina

no one finds it weird that an openly gay judge is the one who overturns the amendment? Should he have even been hearing the case?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard