Prop 8: Unconstitutional!

Quote :

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce roposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

Sauce

PDF of the decision

Coolios. I should wear my Legalise Gay shirt today to celibrate.




...yesishopatamericanapparel iamahipsterwhore =.=

Yeah, if it's constitutional, it must be moral!

So, just to clarify before I crack out the bubbly (metaphorically; actually it's a can of Zywiec), this means gay marriage is once again legal in California? And (this may be wishful thinking here) constitutionally, all American states should allow gay people to marry because it's in the constitution?

It's not in the Constitution itself, but stopping gay marriage has been declared unconstitutional and all states should legalize gay marriage.

"Should" being the operative word. The Constitution won't stop people from being dicks.

Not quite, ZoZ. This pretty much only applies to this particular law, will definitely be appealed, and likely won't take effect until and unless the higher courts reaffirm this ruling.

Baby steps, eh?

I saw Prop 8 as a massive dick move. I really don't think a bigoted public should have a say in a human rights issue. Fact is, if you're against gay marriage, don't have one.

Hurrah! That's an awesome thing to wake up to!

Hooray! And for those people against gay marriage who say it's a social experiment with unknown consequences, take a look at Canada. As a result of gay marriage being legalized there, gays got married. Other consequences included...uh...um...can't think of any.

I hope that one day soon gay marriage will be legal throughout the United States.

ZoZo wrote:

And (this may be wishful thinking here) constitutionally, all American states should allow gay people to marry because it's in the constitution?

Not quite that far - assuming it's upheld on appeal (the 9th Circuit will probably affirm because it tends to skew more liberally than the other Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court is really a crapshoot), then the argument would center squarely against the Defense of Marriage Act that Congress passed several years ago.

Using this decision as the crux, the argument would then be that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment demands that all states must recognize gay marriage (thus invalidating DOMA).

America, FUCK YEAH

Er...

CALIFORNIA, FUCK YEAH

Woohoo!

Drabbler wrote:

Not quite, ZoZ. This pretty much only applies to this particular law, will definitely be appealed, and likely won't take effect until and unless the higher courts reaffirm this ruling.

I believe the decision says it will take effect immediately.

The more I hear about this the more ecstatic I am. Regardless of how it all comes out in the end, things have been said that really needed to be said.

Quote :

Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

Can I get a hell yeah?

Quote :

Fact #58: Prop 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
Fact #67: Prop 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Prop 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.
Fact #79: The Prop 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements.

These facts are all awesome.

Quote :

Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents.

I just threw this in here because it made me LOL.

Quote :

Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.

I had never heard of this judge before yesterday and I think I want to have his baby.

thebonerules wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Not quite, ZoZ. This pretty much only applies to this particular law, will definitely be appealed, and likely won't take effect until and unless the higher courts reaffirm this ruling.

I believe the decision says it will take effect immediately.

Right from CNN:

CNN wrote:

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled the state's Proposition 8, a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. However, Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco granted a temporary stay, which stops his decision from taking immediate effect.

The sides have until tomorrow to submit their cases on the stay, but even if his ends, a higher court could issue one while the case is pending there.

Gotta LOL at some of the bawwing from peoplem who support Prop 8:

Quote :

“You’re stripping 7 million people of their right to vote,” said Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage.

Uh...no. Ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional does not disenfranchise anyone. It does, however, indicate that it is unconstitutional to allow people to vote on other people's civil rights.

For some reason, rae's link isn't working for me. So here's another link, the LA Times.

Some of the comments just make me so, so happy that this was overturned.

Quote :

still this is wrong very wrong.... this country only digs itself into a bigger hole each time. VERY SAD!

“Love without God can take wicked turns and disguise itself as a noble concept, such as “compassion”, “social-justice” or “dignity”. If ever there was a nation fallen prey to false love, is it’s the United States. Under cunning guises of compassion, freedom, understanding, and choice, our society has accepted homosexual behavior, euthanasia, and abortion all diabolical and false imitations of true concepts. As we can see, without God true love is unsustainable, of course those faithful to the Gospel know that Love can’t be separated from God, no matter how much people desire such an amputation. All Love is a determination to be God-like…. True Love is not a feeling, it is a decision. If love is God-like, then it is God-Centered and can not survive without his presence.” –f JC

Quote :

Allow me to be the first to congratulate the American Left, the News Media and the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender crowd for their abundant disregard for the Will of The People. For their subversion of the Rule of Law, the morality of society and their collective repudiation of the Democratic process. You've learn your lessons well from Mr. Al Gore, "If you can't beat them in the ballot box or on the field of fair play and ideas, find a Liberal judge to throw out the results...".

Quote :

The issue with God is that his creation be used as it was designed.

Those who disrespect nature will pay in hell.

Men and women are God's design for marriage.

Everyone agrees with that after they die and meet God.

Quote :

So, voters are again denied by a judge....when will the people understand that 1% of the people are affecting 99% of the people.

So now, its on to the Supreme Court...more wasted money, more wasted energy. May God have mercy on our souls.

The bible tells me to hate evil, this is evil.

And so on, and so on.

EDIT: Ok, one more. This one made me WTF hard.

Quote :

So it's OK, for Gays to take away straight people rights, but theirs are special? So now religious people, have what for thousands of years was based on A Man and Women, is now gone, why do small, minorities run all the judges. WHAT IS THE POINT OF VOTING EVER?????????????????????????????????????????????????

HAY U GAY & WEIRD & TRANS & LIBERAL PPLS! STOP TAKING OVER MAH RIGTS!

SECOND EDIT: I think someone missed it when we're actually a democratic republic.

Quote :

See the issue here isn't at all equality. It's democracy, the nature of our representative republic, and the fact that judges and politicians can strike down the will of the people based on their own personal interpretation of the Constitution.

This is completely outrageous. The Constitution was drafted for the people, and the people amend it through voting. Though the Proposition from 2008 wasn't an amendment, it holds to the same standard. The majority spoke, and the minority struck them down.

God bless America

Quote :

“You’re stripping 7 million people of their right to vote,” said Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage.

"Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. "

Quote :

Allow me to be the first to congratulate the American Left, the News Media and the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender crowd for their abundant disregard for the Will of The People. For their subversion of the Rule of Law, the morality of society and their collective repudiation of the Democratic process. You've learn your lessons well from Mr. Al Gore, "If you can't beat them in the ballot box or on the field of fair play and ideas, find a Liberal judge to throw out the results...".

"Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. "

Quote :

So, voters are again denied by a judge....when will the people understand that 1% of the people are affecting 99% of the people.

"Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. "

Quote :

So it's OK, for Gays to take away straight people rights, but theirs are special? So now religious people, have what for thousands of years was based on A Man and Women, is now gone, why do small, minorities run all the judges. WHAT IS THE POINT OF VOTING EVER?????????????????????????????????????????????????

"Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. "

Quote :

See the issue here isn't at all equality. It's democracy, the nature of our representative republic, and the fact that judges and politicians can strike down the will of the people based on their own personal interpretation of the Constitution.

This is completely outrageous. The Constitution was drafted for the people, and the people amend it through voting. Though the Proposition from 2008 wasn't an amendment, it holds to the same standard. The majority spoke, and the minority struck them down.

God bless America

"Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. "

Heehee...

Lawl, Reep!

The craziness goes on:

Quote :

The floodgates have swung wide open now. Get ready for polygamy, child indoctrination in the school system and the threat of legal action against anyone who speaks negatively about homosexuality. This case was not about fairness or hate, but about curbing an aggressive homosexual ideology that will not stop until they are not only protected by federal law, but given a privileged status that surpasses affirmative action.

OMFG HOW DARE YOU GAYS DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS!!! What do you think this is, America?

Quote :

What a surprise, our world is going by way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I'll believe that when God smites me.

Quote :

This is what is wrong with the cult of Liberalism that has hijacked the the United States. Homosexuals could have had ALL the priviledges and rights of marriage - WITHOUT altering the legal term "marriage" - but that was not good enough for them.

This has little if anything to do with extending rights to homosexuals. It has to do with 1) Unraveling the fabric of American society - one strand at a time, 2) Destroying the meaning of a legal term that crosses nearly all religious, national, and culteral borders - and has done so for thousands of years.

If the Extreme-Left can alter the meaning of this legal term - they can change the meaning of ALL legal terms. Then we become a nation without finite laws. That the tradition, history, and legal meaning of marriage that has stood practically since the beginning of recorded time - can be struck down by ONE activist judge - is a travesty and a shame upon this great nation.

Yeah, but now they have all the privileges and rights of marriage, like everyone else.

Also, ROFLLOLLERSKATES at the bolded part.

Quote :

This proves that the American people no longer have a voice in this country. They voted 52% against Prop 8 yet it was successfully appealed and overturned. Why continue to vote? It's obvious from this ruling that it's something the government allows us to do to make us think it makes a difference. We have no choice anymore. We live in a Communist state thanks to our Kenyan born dictator and Zionist liberals.

This is no longer my country. I renounce my citizenship.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

EDIT: I keep finding weird gems in there, like this:

Quote :

Homosexuality is defined by sex. Heterosexuality is defined by God. Period

WAT.

I've got a question for you guys but first let me state what was said and blah, blah, etc....

So, on my facebook there are a couple of folks who weigh in on the Prop 8 issue. My friend (we'll call her "D") posts a status update saying:

Quote :

Wish
I was in California tonight for the massive celebration. You know
there's some amazing parties going on there now. [NO MORE HATE!]

Awesome, right? D's the best and I'm sure there are some badass parties that we're missing out on. However someone (we'll call her A.H.) comments with the following:

Quote :

Ummm. I like traditional marriage ONLY.

Well, there's your opinion then.

Okay. So my good friend D replies with:

Quote :

Personally,
I'm not gay, have no desire to be, have never even done so much as to
jokingly kiss a girl, and I am a Mormon (duh lol). However, I still
believe that I should have no say whatsoever in what gay people get to
do with their lives....
If they are wrong, they will find that out in their own time, but until
then they should be allowed the same liberties that straight people
have merely because we are all human and should all be equal. Its not up
to me to judge them for who they love. Saying they should be forced to
have a different union title than straight people is basically a form of
segregation, which is a practice I don't support.

I respect
those who have an opposing opinion about this issue as long as they are
humane and civil about the matter. I cannot even begin to fathom how
hard it must be to be in a world full of predjudice and hatred, and in
some places to be afraid to love someone, so i am not about to say i
know whats best for someone in that position.

which basically covers it, but just because I can (and I just feel wanky atm) I reply with "MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFITS SHOULD BE A UNIVERSAL RIGHT. All human beings are created equal."

Meaning, really, I should be able to marry my sweetheart. Just because she has a vagina should not prevent me from doing so and both of us from benefiting from all the rights and privileges that come with marriage. Right? Right?

So A.H. says:

Quote :

This might sound heartless and im in no way trying to demean. Buuuut it
can create a snowball effect to where brothers can marry sisters or that
someone can marry their pet if they wanted too AND have insurance
benefits... i support love but they shouldnt put a ring on it. If they
love each other they will continue to love each other with or without a
liscence.

UM, WHAT?

Is this a legitimate concern?! Or am I just throwing myself into a pile of wank stank....

I'm not sure where people come up with this idea that if you let people
who deserve the same rights as another human being then all of a sudden
brothers will be marrying sisters and nazis will ride on dinosaurs.

EVERYONE deserves to be treated equally under the law
regardless of race, religion, gender or sexuality. There should be no
reason why I should not be able to marry whomever I choose.

Oh that old slippery slope argument. Back in the day that same argument was used against interracial marrage. Probably they said 'If we allow blacks and whites to marry next thing you know men will be marrying men! Then who will do the housework!?'


Edited because I am a typo machine

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Oh that old slippery slope argument. Back in the day that same argument was used against interracial marrage. Probably they said 'If we alow blacks and white to marry next thing you know men will be marrying men! Then who will do the housework!?'

Ha ha ha, those assholes. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Effing priceless.

Is somebody up on the law as to where incestual marraige is allowable or not?

Also, marrying your pets is an invalid argument because pets do not have sovereignty.

myeerah wrote:

Is somebody up on the law as to where incestual marraige is allowable or not?

Also, marrying your pets is an invalid argument because pets do not have sovereignty.

Twenty states allow marriage between first cousins. That's as close to legal incest as it gets in the states.

Quote :

As long as the legal term "Marriage" is up for grabs - let's redefine "inalienable rights" to mean "Privileges granted by Barak Obama".

These comments are a gold mine, I tell you. A GOLD MINE.

EDIT:

Quote :

this judge should know that the voice of the people is the voice of GOD.
NO MATTER HOW ONE PERSON CALLS HIS/HER GOD, THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. thanks.

Soo... according to this nutjob, God wanted the Antichrist in the White House?