Good news: Prop 8 Struck Down by Federal Judge

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Everyone here is probably quite aware that California's Prop 8 barring same-sex marriage has been struck down by a Federal court. Here is a WSJ blog on the matter:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down California’s voter-mandated ban on gay marriages, but stopped short of finding that other states or the federal government were required to recognize same-sex marriage. The decision sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on gay marriage as soon as next year, and could add fuel to the issue in the presidential campaign. In a 2-1 vote, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California’s 2008 law, popularly known as Proposition 8, violated the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause by stigmatizing a minority group without legitimate reason.

Of course, Californians same-sex couples are anxious to know when they can get hitched. LA's mayor has called for the stay on marriages to be lifted.

How do you think the Supreme Court will weigh in on the many issues involved? Do you believe they should not consider the issue?

Comments

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

They would like to continue to have the right to persecute and discriminate against homosexuals. I am sure some folks feel disfranchised.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

California should stop all the nonsense with their referendums.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

When it's something person X supports, then they are happy to appeal to the majority support. When it isn't, it's about how the majority shouldn't override "what's right", as if person X somehow defines what that is.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

To the initiated Jesus said that marriage was a symbol of the unification of the divided self into a complete being. As a symbol it is more important for the two halves to love than to have different sexual organs. In a way, is it possible that Jesus didn't come to save humanity but ask humanity to save god? How does this relate to the coin of Rome with Caesar on one side and the state on the other? Are same-sex couples rendering properly? We must know!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt that Jesus had any interest in saving the material Creator. One could argue that the Church had yet to invent the character yet. Unto whom do we render second-class status? Do we put it in the camp of Caesar, or do we associate it with Jesus?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

To the initiated Jesus said that marriage was a symbol of the unification of the divided self into a complete being.

Citation needed.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Wow, I haven't been here in a long time...

Anyway, I guess I'm a little confused on whether the Supreme Court would be ruling on gay marriage for the whole country (i.e. states are forced to recognize it) or just the state of California.

And I agree very strongly that civil rights should not be voted on. I'm glad they reversed the decision, even if it's dubious progress.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It would set a precedent for the whole country.
violated the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause by stigmatizing a minority group without legitimate reason.

Basically they would rule on whether such a law does or does not do that, and then other laws would be judged according to that ruling.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

As far as I understand the court decision was stated in a way to insulate the issue jsut to California. So it has no wider impact.

[tinyrevolution.livejournal.com]

The justices will have a chance to invalidate every DOMA in the country. But I'm not holding my breath.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

SCOTUS may not weigh in at all. The decision was specifically written to apply only to the unique Californian case, where they gave the right before revoking it. There's a lot in here that wasn't in the Walker trial-level decision that limits its general applicability. Walker, for instance, found an equal protection violation in a basic gay marriage ban, whereas the 9th Circuit found it only when revoking the right once given, under Romer v. Evans. So this will apply only to California, whereas Walker's decision would've applied to every state (if accepted).

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And yet Ted Olson said last night in an exclusive interview with Rachel Maddow, he believes the decision would apply to the issue in other states and was written specifically for Justice Kennedy in its wording in asking that the decision not be overturned. Since Kennedy would be seen as some sort of swing vote. Since Olson has argued many cases (Bush vs Gore) as solicitor general, I'm guessing he's spot on with his assessment of reading the ruling.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That is sort of the position taken by the Episcopalians in San Francisco. After the state instituted same-sex marriage, the Episcopalians established a universal policy that they would simply bless a marriage after it had been performed by the secular authority. The term "civil union" has been applied to a form of marriage that was instituted as a form of separate-but-equal type of discrimination. One of the reasons for applying the term "marriage" is that it is referenced in a variety of laws, both state and federal.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

You do know the court is not made up of the same judges as ruled in Brown

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I am less ashamed to be a Californian than I was before the ruling. We are today, one small step closer to my home state ending its systematic discrimination against homosexuals.

I am not qualified to answer the question about the supreme court. I believe its their role to do so, but I am too ignorant to comment frankly.

I agree with the civil unions for all comments. I would like government completely out of marriage. But that seems a separate topic.

[whak-hat.livejournal.com]

…how long is America going to sit there going on about how gay marriage is against the constitution of marriage? Come on, aren't you guys constantly bragging about how 'forward thinking' and 'human rights maintaining' you are?

As for what I think they'll do? …not a clue. Obama might push for gay marriage to help fix his dismal reputation as a person who can't actually accomplish things but I won't hold my breath. From what I've seen of the others they either don't care or are for prop 8.

I personally hope prop 8 is thrown out the window and people realize that the only thing they have to fear from gay people is being forced to have a fashion sense (lol, not that that's always true but really it's like hating puppies because they're puppies)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Bragging, sure. Walking our talk, meh, not so much.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

America is one of those places that beats other nations up for human rights violations, but eschews enforcing the same policy within its own borders. The traditional definition of "freedom" in the US is the freedom to practice despotism.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

I can see no real reason to give anything remotely resembling a shit about this issue from either side. The "ban" on homosexual marriage is not a significant source of oppression, and the presence of it is not a significant source of degradation of "marriage", since that "institution" is already effectively dead.

Just don't care.

Honestly, I find the debate surrounding it to be a distraction for weak minds. Kinda like the superbowl, except for dumb political types, rather than dumb jock types.

Have fun at the circus, hope you enjoy the bread.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The "ban" on homosexual marriage is not a significant source of oppression,

The banned and those who would side with them disagree. They make a good case too.

since that "institution" is already effectively dead

Wow. You've gone out on a limb there.


I find the debate surrounding it to be a distraction for weak minds

Hey, that's what that wrestler/governor dude said about Religion.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Personally, I can't wait for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely and start issuing civil unions for any adults who need them.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I agree, though I would chuck civil unions as well. The government shouldn't regulate arrangements that people make between themselves.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The only thing that annoys me is the shallowness of the arguments often put forth in favor of it. The supporters of it don't realize their argument may as well be the exact inverse of the argument they mock. "Because God said so" is just as simplistic as "because it's a human right". Neither actually proves itself and just relies on tautology.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What? Are you talking about marriage in general or specifically about their justification for allowing opposite sex marriages and not same-sex marriages? Because it sounds like the former, otherwise your comment makes no sense.