Activist judge issues activist ruling and overthrows CA prop 8

[Jamisjockey]

I'm not sure that there could be a more blantant activist ruling than the one issued by this "judge".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

Remember, kiddos, Democracy only works when you vote for something I agree with.  Vote against me, and I'll see you in court!

[MechAg94]

A quote in the middle of the ariticle on the DrudgeReport has the judge saying ""The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples".  That just seems a very convoluted thing to say to me. 

[TechMan]

Wow that is a really long hyper link.

[tyme]

Link shortened.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

What's wrong with that statement?

If marriage is intended to facilitate "proper" child-rearing, we should dispense with marriage licenses and issue child-rearing licenses instead (to avoid the abortion discussion: if no child-rearing license is obtained, let's just assume that the child would be carried to term and put up for adoption).
[Of course, that has its own problems, because it merely shifts the emphasis: instead of the government deciding who can be a couple, it's instead deciding who is deemed worthy to have children.]

If, on the other hand, you just "know", as a lot of Californians seem to, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that's your opinion, but other people disagree.  As long as the secular institution of marriage confers legal privileges relating to financial accounts, inheritance, medical information sharing, and employment benefits, this issue will not go away simply by reiterating the commonly stated view that "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

I say that as someone who can't think of gay marriage without recalling with vivid annoyance being unable to work one day in San Francisco because of the noise outside from the annual gay pride parade.

This ruling may be judicial activism, though I think it's the same kind of judicial activism that lead to the end of legally enforced segregation.  I don't like (predominantly black, hispanic, or those attempting to emulate black or hispanic) gang members or hoodlums, but that does not mean I support racism.  And unlike those criminals, some vocal ("flaming") homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders/&c might at times be an annoyance or even an embarrassment to the human race, but they will probably not rob me or steal my car.

[Ron]

Government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

[Monkeyleg]

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for laws against murder."

Does that work, too?

Regardless of your stance on the issue, the judge's statement is moronic.

[HankB]

Who needs an election or referendum when we can get a judge to make laws for us?

[Ben]

Without getting into the right or wrong of the issue, I sometimes wonder why we have ballot initiatives that can be so easily overturned.

Long before the current Arizona fight with the fed.gov, CA had Prop 187, also overturned by activists after a majority of citizens voted for it. I'm not sure how overturning ballot initiatives doesn't tick people off and sour them on the whole democratic process. Why bother to vote for something if anyone can come along and reverse it in the courts?

We talk a lot here about the negatives of "ruled by the masses", so I don't want to sound hypocritical. There should be a venue for addressing potentially unjust results in the voting booths -- it just shouldn't be this easy. Or if it is this easy, I should be able to get the 90% of CA propositions that have been passed over the last few voting cycles reversed, since they negatively affect me -- one of the minority of voters that voted against them.

[RaspberrySurprise]

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for laws against murder."

Does that work, too?

Regardless of your stance on the issue, the judge's statement is moronic.

How exactly does gay marriage deprive someone of basic rights in the way murder does?

[makattak]

How exactly does gay marriage deprive someone of basic rights in the way murder does?

What does that have to do with whether there is a moral and/or religious basis for laws?

Ironically, you just revealed your moral basis for laws. It's not the only moral basis. You wish your moral basis to be the foundation for all law to the exclusion of all other bases.

[tyme]

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for laws against murder."

Does that work, too?

Regardless of your stance on the issue, the judge's statement is moronic.

No.
"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that being dead is different than being alive."  That might work, but there is an obvious difference in the things being compared.  Being dead or alive can be quantified more concretely (brain waves, certain reactions to stimuli, or maybe other ways  -- I am not a neurologist) and has clear implications for the deceased that everyone can understand.  The nature of a relationship between two people is a lot more fuzzy.

I think there's an implication in the quote, like so:

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that [the relationship between] same-sex couples [is] different from opposite-sex couples [aside from the mechanics involved, physical attributes]."

Obviously nobody thinks males and females are the same genetically or physically, but that can be said of any two people regardless of sex.  Has it really been so long that nobody remembers (either directly or from historical accounts) the exact same sentiment being applied in cases of mixed-race couples?

[makattak]

No.
"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that being dead is different than being alive."  That might work, but there is an obvious difference in the things being compared.  Being dead or alive can be quantified more concretely (brain waves, certain reactions to stimuli, or maybe other ways  -- I am not a neurologist) and has clear implications for the deceased that everyone can understand.  The nature of a relationship between two people is a lot more fuzzy.

I think there's an implication in the quote, like so:
Obviously nobody thinks males and females are the same genetically or physically, but that can be said of any two people regardless of sex.  Has it really been so long that nobody remembers (either directly or from historical accounts) the exact same sentiment being applied in cases of mixed-race couples?

So your position that a mixed-race couple is the same as a homosexual couple does not stem from a moral belief?

[RaspberrySurprise]

What does that have to do with whether there is a moral and/or religious basis for laws?

Ironically, you just revealed your moral basis for laws. It's not the only moral basis. You wish your moral basis to be the foundation for all law to the exclusion of all other bases.

I don't think it was ironic as I wasn't trying to hide anything. Yes it isn't the only moral basis for laws this is true but I can say that it's based on a maximum of liberty while trying to minimize any real harm to another.

Diversity is cool and all, but wanting diversity to the point of saying it's alright to tell others how to live their life when they aren't hurting you isn't.

[RevDisk]

Without getting into the right or wrong of the issue, I sometimes wonder why we have ballot initiatives that can be so easily overturned.

Long before the current Arizona fight with the fed.gov, CA had Prop 187, also overturned by activists after a majority of citizens voted for it. I'm not sure how overturning ballot initiatives doesn't tick people off and sour them on the whole democratic process. Why bother to vote for something if anyone can come along and reverse it in the courts?

We talk a lot here about the negatives of "ruled by the masses", so I don't want to sound hypocritical. There should be a venue for addressing potentially unjust results in the voting booths -- it just shouldn't be this easy. Or if it is this easy, I should be able to get the 90% of CA propositions that have been passed over the last few voting cycles reversed, since they negatively affect me -- one of the minority of voters that voted against them.

As far as I'm aware, California's Props are amendments to their state constitution.  Thus overruling the laws and the courts of California.  The only way for them to be overturned is for the federal system to say they conflict with the US Constitution.  And maybe with fed law.  That issue is still being debated, re the states suing the feds over 2A and immigration.

As far as I am concerned, state constitutions do not and should not trump the US Constitution.   I think government issued marriage licenses are a gross violation of the letter and spirit of the US Constitution, regardless of whether it is for same sex, multiracial, heterosexual or whatever.  It is not the place of the government to regulate strictly religious affairs.  Folks advocating the government regulate marriage should take care, lest they be successful and get exactly what they want...   Total control of a wedge of religious activities.  I will laugh hysterically when that sinks in.

[makattak]

As far as I'm aware, California's Props are amendments to their state constitution.  Thus overruling the laws and the courts of California.  The only way for them to be overturned is for the federal system to say they conflict with the US Constitution.  And maybe with fed law.  That issue is still being debated, re the states suing the feds over 2A and immigration.

As far as I am concerned, state constitutions do not and should not trump the US Constitution.   I think government issued marriage licenses are a gross violation of the letter and spirit of the US Constitution, regardless of whether it is for same sex, multiracial, heterosexual or whatever.  It is not the place of the government to regulate strictly religious affairs.  Folks advocating the government regulate marriage should take care, lest they be successful and get exactly what they want...   Total control of a wedge of religious activities.  I will laugh hysterically when that sinks in.

What in the US Constitution forbids states from regulating marriage?

[makattak]

Diversity is cool and all, but wanting diversity to the point of saying it's alright to tell others how to live their life when they aren't hurting you isn't.

How does refusing to recognize someone's lifestyle as legimate = telling others how to live their lives?

People seem to have strange ideas of how using government coercion to force people to recognize your lifestyle and preferences = pursuing maximum liberty.

I suppose it's ok to use the force of government on people whose ideas are icky, right?

[Seenterman]

I still have yet to hear one logical argument against gay marriage that does start with because my religion said so, or because marriage is between a man and a woman. If anyone has an actual reason I'd love to hear it here.

No one is trying to force Your church to gay marry anyone, but Prop 8 supporters want to stop ALL churches from gay marrying people.

Doesn't Prop 8 go against the 1st Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

Might not be Congress but it sure appears the government is trying to stifle some peoples religious exercises. Plus its simple discrimination, why is that so hard to understand?  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I still have yet to hear one logical argument against gay marriage that does start with because my religion said so, or because marriage is between a man and a woman. If anyone has an actual reason I'd love to hear it here.


you weren't listening  one reason is its expensive. companies will have to offer benefits to folks they currently don't cover.
it will create some additional income for lawyers as the lawyers thrash out new case law and precedent, and that cash comes from someone.
they create another protected species  if a gay couple gets benefits shouldn't some guy just cohabititating with a girl be able to get his g/f covered? why not? write another check
and there is nothing there that can't be handled by civil unions and the appropriate legislation surrounding them  and those civil munions would be non discriminatory.

[makattak]

Doesn't Prop 8 go against the 1st Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

Ok, I'll bite. How is outlawing gay marriage establishing a religion?

Or did I misread Proposition 8 and it somewhere said: "Only marriages performed by the Catholic Church will be recognized by the State of California"?

For that matter, some churches approve of and conduct gay marriage. Wouldn't, therefore, requiring gay marriage be "establishing a religion"? (Edit: Yes, I know the difference is you like what those churches teach.)

[Tallpine]

marriage is between a man and a woman

What else would it be 

Can I marry my horse..? 


Marraige is a social construct developed over the ages to protect the children of a sexual union.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[longeyes]

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, Anything Goes.

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes

When grandmama whose age is eighty
In night clubs is getting matey with gigolo's,
Anything Goes.

When mothers pack and leave poor father
Because they decide they'd rather be tennis pros,
Anything Goes.

If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like,
If Mae West you like
Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose!
When every night,
The set that's smart
Is intruding in nudist parties in studios,
Anything Goes.

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes

If saying your prayers you like,
If green pears you like
If old chairs you like,
If back stairs you like,
If love affairs you like
With young bears you like,
Why nobody will oppose!

And though I'm not a great romancer
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes...
Anything goes!

[RevDisk]

What in the US Constitution forbids states from regulating marriage?
(snip)
Ok, I'll bite. How is outlawing gay marriage establishing a religion?

Uh...   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  Plus toss in the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Technically speaking, if a religion does the whole gay marriage thing, they could argue that unless the government had compelling interest, under the Constitution the feds have no legal right to ban their ceremony.  Under Full Faith and Credit and Due Process, it'd be valid everywhere.  Not saying I agree or that the courts would agree, but that'd be the most logical legal path.

This was discussed previously, actually.  Loving v. Virginia.  Virginia argued that they had a compelling interest in banning interracial marriage, under the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924".  Virginia also tried arguing that Full Faith and Credit didn't exist either.  They were unsuccessful.  I'd be really curious if and how anti-miscegenation laws are used in precedent.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I'd be really curious if and how anti-miscegenation laws are used in precedent.

some interesting politics behind those laws demise in some places.  in md there was a politically connected filipino lady whose son fell in love with a white girl . she wanted to do the whole bid wedding thing and for that to happen with all the bells whistles and politicians and such in attendance it needed to be legal. she got her checkbook out and made it happen  quick.  money talked. if i remember it right it was 64 or so.

[Seenterman]

you weren't listening  one reason is its expensive. companies will have to offer benefits to folks they currently don't cover.

It's expensive? Well why do companies even have to offer benefits to spouses, I'm sure if gay marriage was legal some companies would stop offering coverage to all spouses and that would be in their rights but then some people could choose not to work for them. Free market solutions, that was easy.

it will create some additional income for lawyers as the lawyers thrash out new case law and precedent, and that cash comes from someone.

Lame excuse, Fighting for the 2nd Amendment creates additional income for lawyers, does that mean its not worth the expenditure?

they create another protected species  if a gay couple gets benefits shouldn't some guy just cohabititating with a girl be able to get his g/f covered? why not? write another check
and there is nothing there that can't be handled by civil unions and the appropriate legislation surrounding them  and those civil munions would be non discriminatory.

Is your wife a protected species? Why or Why not? Is she a protected species just because your two are married? Why should some guy just living with his girlfriend get covered on his health insurance? They should get married if they want those benefits, no one's stopping "that guy" but an entire group of people are trying to stop "those guys" from getting married.

Ok, I'll bite. How is outlawing gay marriage establishing a religion?

It's not establishing a religion is preventing the free exercise of religion. Is marriage a religious ceremony? Yes. Are two men allowed to partake in this religious ceremony? No. Prop 8 prevents pastors who want to marry a gay couple from marrying that gay couple, hence preventing free exercise of that religion.

Can I marry my horse..?

Does a gay man = a horse to you? What other rights have we withheld from our poor oppressed equidae brothers?

[MechAg94]

It's not establishing a religion is preventing the free exercise of religion. Is marriage a religious ceremony? Yes. Are two men allowed to partake in this religious ceremony? No. Prop 8 prevents pastors who want to marry a gay couple from marrying that gay couple, hence preventing free exercise of that religion.

Are you trying to say that in California, it was illegal for a preacher to marry a couple without a marriage license?  

There never was anything stopping gay couples from going through the ceremony.  The restriction was in issuing marriage licenses and govt recognition of the marriage, not the ceremony.