Prop 8 is to get a ruling today
 

link


Thoughts?

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California is expected to issue his ruling Wednesday on whether the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The closely watched case, to be decided by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, comes some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Wednesday's ruling, expected in the early afternoon, will decide whether that ban violates the U.S. Constitution by creating separate classes of people with different laws for each.

Though stakes in the case are high, neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage say Walker's ruling will likely be the last. Both sides say the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

I'm too invested to guess. I just hope it goes the right way.

I've liked the Judge, he hasn't let anyone get away with BS and I've been following a trial tracker from the pro-same-sex marriage side. So, although it's biased, I followed the arguments, and though it's been an uphill battle, I think it's quite possible and maybe even likely that Prop 8 will be thrown out. *knocks on wood*

overturned

http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-un...re-overturned/

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/j...8/clapping.gif

Thanks for bumping this. I couldn't find it lol

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/...4b5b26b668.jpg

Yes!

Saw that coming a mile away.

What's the next step, the Court of Appeals?

Woo hoo!

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/d...fs2/r2n53k.gif

ETA: Just noticed: product placement! I like those Nikes lol

According to the judge I believe he is debating about whether to suspend his ruling until it goes to appeal or not.

He has given both sides till I believe August 6th to submit written arguments on their next steps.

And it will go to appeal, unfortunately. Although I wonder how it works when the state of California isn't the one defending it, but outside agents "on behalf of the state."

*Pages MysticCat*

Can the outside agents file the appeal on behalf of California? Are there more hoops they have to jump through?

Are you sure it won't be the State of California defending it? The entire state still falls within the 9th Circuit IIRC.

I'm thankful that there are judges who understand that you can't let the majority take away rights from the minority.

I'm mad this image came back.

But this is it's one free pass given the context...

The State declined to defend it the first time. Means the governor and AG chose NOT to mount a defense (not sure who calls the shots there but it's not important.) So the Pro-Prop 8 people are defending on behalf of the state.

I doubt CA would choose to defend it now.

:D

Hopefully Sens I would get a kick out of this

http://a.imageshack.us/img697/2335/1...e8a1604944.jpg

Given the governor's and attorney general's decisions not to defend it, the court allowed the current defendants -- some groups that supported Prop 8 -- to intervene so that there would be someone to defend the suit. That means those groups are now defendants. Unless plaintiffs opposed that at the trial court and make that an issue on appeal, no more hoops regarding the parties.

It will definitely be appealed -- that was clear along, regardless of who won and who lost.

I haven't had a chance to read the (130+ page) opinion yet; I've just followed some news sources. From those, I take it that the court focused heavily on how defendants' evidence had not established a rational basis for Prop 8. A law that discriminates between people who are not part of a protected class (e.g., racial or ethnic minorities) does not violate the equal protection clause if it has a rational basis. This could good and bad for the opponents of Prop 8 and similar measures.

On the "good" side, it means that the appeals court may show more deference to the trial court. Questions of law are considered anew by an appeals court, but for questions of fact/evidence, deference is usually given to the trial court. Findings of fact are generally harder to overturn on appeal than conclusions of law.

On the "bad" side, it doesn't mean that the trial court found that same-sex marriage bans are per se unconstitutional. Rather, he found that these defendants had not shown a rational basis for this ban.

Though the Ninth Circuit is traditionally more liberal/progressive/choose your term, I wouldn't automatically assume that it will affirm the trial court's decision. We'll have to wait and see.

If they reverse the trial judge, the case may well stop there. The Supreme Court may not see a need to step in. On the other hand if they affirm it, I think it's headed to the Supreme Court. Unless the make-up of the Court changes between now and then by someone other than a more liberal justice or Justice Kennedy leaving, I think the odds in SCOTUS definitely favor the proponants of Prop 8.

FWIW.

I hear that NAMBLA is looking for legitimatcy in the marriage arena now. Their name/acronymn indicates that it is about "love" after all.

You're really going to draw a parallel between consenting adults of the same sex and . . . well, it would be pretty silly to compare to ANYTHING, but particularly, using children in the comparison is absurd.

The entire "WHERE DOES IT END?!? CAN I MARRY LAMP?" line of thought is fairly ridiculous as it is - it seems clear that the line is drawn at 2 consenting adults - but use of NAMBLA seems unnecessarily cute, too. Well done dude.

:rolleyes:

Probably comes from the same place as the belief that all gay men are predators trying to seduce and rape children or that gay men are sexually aggressive toward men simply because they're men (not because of any real attraction or emotional connection).

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

So what? Birth defects happen to children in marriages that are not among close relatives.

Many monarchies survived hundreds of years inbreeding. I would bet that mankind survived due to inbreeding in its early years.

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

All of what you just mentioned are already outlawed in most states...and?

I see where he is going with his argument....but if they put in the language 2 consenting adults, I think we might be ok...

One of the main reasons Prop 8 passed was because of the slippery slope of polygamy.

I am against Prop 8 wholeheartedly....but someone pointed out to me when it was on the ballot...down the road it could lead to this possibility and it made me think...there are a lot of programs/laws in this country that started out for a specific purpose and have totally been turned out and used differently because of the language ... so I see that it can lead to a slippery slope of the language isn't used correctly.

Just for an example (and not to lead to a debate on #2)...but to me, #2 is used totally different than what it was originally meant...

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

MC can you elaborate on why SCOTUS is not likely to take up the case if it is overturned on appeal?

and a quick yahoo search yielded up these results

...and laws can be changed. What is to stop that from happening?

The will of the majority can also be overridden by judicial fiat. Where do you stop it and how could you if you wanted to? So if someone brings a suit to allow some other form of marriage (you pick your poison) a judge just has to agree to hear the suit and may at his whim overturn the law prohibiting it. Hence the slippery slope.

No you are being naive.

On that note, entirely overlooking any moral issues people have with polygamy, I'm curious what the effect would be of legalizing this form of marriage. We've discussed it before on GC, but those forums always polarize and then dissolve.

I'm thinking, for example, with medical insurance, if you put multiple wives/husbands on your plan, it would just cost more.

I understand that we aren't set up to handle multiple partners in a marriage, so there would have to be some adjustments to handle things like sudden death with no will (i.e. who gets first dibs).

It just doesn't seem that difficult to accommodate the change. They're finagling it anyway. Why not impose some regulations to enforce protection of the multiple wives/husbands?

Rhetorical questions...no derailing intended.

No, I understand what you're saying. I'm just not scared.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not something you should actually worry about.

So let them be married instead of having civil unions so they're not discriminated against in any form.

Besides of public health reasons there is also a high potential of abuse due to power differentials inherent in the relationship. I don't have a problem with it as long as there aren't kids and there truly isn't a power differential. It would probably require siblings to grow up separate for that to actually happen. But I appear to be on of the few people who doesn't have an incest squick button.

A) No those aren't actually slippery slopes.
B) You're redundant.
C) Bigamy is fraud, it will always be illegal.
D) Polygamy as practiced by FLDS groups is child abuse.
E) Polyamory/group relationships are good things when freely consented to, but there's no way to make it equal to marriage with all the legal entanglings involved. People in long term group/poly relationships often have unofficial marriage ceremonies. However it's implausible and improbably, however unfortunate that legal marriage could be extended to more than 2 people.

Stop caring what consensual adults do in bed.