USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Larry]

No, they ruled race could not be used to deny the right to marry the opposite sex.

Person of your choice is a very broad interpretation that is not supported in practice (nor law),they did however find the right to marry is a right.

It like other rights are subject to limits.

No, they ruled that marriage was a fundamental right. I read the decision.

"They ruled that race could not be used" is a revisionist spin, being pushed by the forces of "well, this legislated discrimination is different"

[greenspandan]

If Greenspandan can marry his boyfriend, then why not his brother? Why not his brother and his boyfriend?

Are the gay activists working on removing the Sodomy laws as well?

haha i love this post. a bigot tries to take a swipe at me by implying i'm gay. how childish, not to mention impotent, considering it wouldn't bother me if i were gay.

i'm curious about this "sodomy law" angle, though. "sodomy" is a broad, ill-defined term, but laws forbidding private, consensual homosexual sex were already deemed unconstitutional in lawrence v texas back in '03.

[The Evil Genius]

Can you imagine the outrage on Fox News if the judge had been a "scary black man"?

:evilg:

[December90]

haha i love this post. a bigot tries to take a swipe at me by implying i'm gay. how childish, not to mention impotent, considering it wouldn't bother me if i were gay.

i'm curious about this "sodomy law" angle, though. "sodomy" is a broad, ill-defined term, but laws forbidding private, consensual homosexual sex were already deemed unconstitutional in lawrence v texas back in '03.

I knew you would not take offense and just see it as an example.

I also know that it is not likely that I will get an invite to the ceremony anyway:silly:

[twa]

No, they ruled that marriage was a fundamental right. I read the decision.

"They ruled that race could not be used" is a revisionist spin, being pushed by the forces of "well, this legislated discrimination is different"

Do you disagree marriage is a restricted right?

The ruling did not open up marriage to all despite your spin.

[Larry]

Do you disagree marriage is a restricted right?

The ruling did not open up marriage to all despite your spin.

Ah, falling back from "the 14th Amendment, and Loving, only refer to racial discrimination, and all other forms of discrimination are still OK", to "well, marriage has some qualifications, therefore imposing restrictions solely for the purpose of discrimination is OK".

[twa]

Ah, falling back from "the 14th Amendment, and Loving, only refer to racial discrimination, and all other forms of discrimination are still OK", to "well, marriage has some qualifications, therefore imposing restrictions solely for the purpose of discrimination is OK".

Ah, extrapolating a specific ruling to include a tangential one are we?

You and Judge Walker would get along famously

Curious that such a ruling specifically supporting that concept hasn't already been done by a federal judge in all these yrs isn't it???

Clearly they simply don't understand the SCOTUS ruling eh?

[The Evil Genius]

I am going to fall down on the slippery slope and say that the "restrictions" to the "right to marry" in the US will now be defined as marriage consists of two people who are unwed at the time of marriage and not direct blood relations.

[Hubbs]

Pointing out that I don't think there are any tax breaks for getting married, exactly.

I think that for most folks, the only effect that marriage has on their taxes is that the two people are permitted to file jointly. In effect, their deductions can to to whichever partner is in the higher bracket.

There are some other effects, like the ability to transfer property between themselves without taxes.

Mostly, AFAIK, the tax effects of marriage is simply that the government treats the two people as a single couple, as opposed to two separate people.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2010/04/08/comparing-marginal-tax-rates-including-payroll-taxes-2009/

Sometimes less, sometimes more, sometimes doesn't matter.

[twa]

I am going to fall down on the slippery slope and say that the "restrictions" to the "right to marry" in the US will now be defined as marriage consists of two people who are unwed at the time of marriage and not direct blood relations.

Bigot ...I have rights

I left out child molester,but ya didn't define people as consenting adults.

Support forced weddings as well????

[Madison Redskin]

Though a Gay Judge ruling on a Gay issue seems biased?

If a gay judge is biased, are heterosexual judges unbiased?

[mjah]

I am going to fall down on the slippery slope and say that the "restrictions" to the "right to marry" in the US will now be defined as marriage consists of two people who are unwed at the time of marriage and not direct blood relations.

Good God, TEG is down! Someone get a rope!

The blood-relation bit will vary by state. And they'll have to be consenting people. The "rational basis" notion will remain for restricting the governmental definition of marriage, meaning nobody will be marrying their infant daughters, pets, Crocs (real or footbound), etc.

Or so one hopes.

[fear] But you never know! Muahahaha [/monger]

[Madison Redskin]

Just to play devil's advocate, judges are humans with their built in biases. By all accounts the judge ruling on this likes to smoke him some pickle. "Constitutionality" is nothing more than an opinion, and in our judicial system "constitutionality" often hangs on one person's opinion, or ultimately one panel's. Does anyone ever stop to think that maybe our almost 300 year old system is archaic?

What, exactly, do you think would make more sense? Should we create robot judges or simply flip coins to remove the human biases?

[aREDSKIN]

If a gay judge is biased, are heterosexual judges unbiased?

Nope both can be biased, however, given the write-ups of his behavior in this specific case it appears this judge was indeed biased. Do you really think a gay judge in San Francisco can view this case without all his thoughts and views of non gays neutrally?? His ruling speaks volumes of his predispositions and biases. It isn't surprising he ruled the way he ruled. How would have gays felt if this case was before a judge in Salt Lake City, Utah? Umm, I'm sure the biased and bigotry spears would have been out in full force. IMO someone without a dog in the fight should have been the arbiter. This judge was not neutral.

[ACW]

Are the gay activists working on removing the Sodomy laws as well?

:secret: SCOTUS already removed them. So you think getting a BJ should be illegal? :doh:

[19Skins72]

Good! Gays, divorce lawyers, and libertarians everywhere rejoice =)

[mjah]

Nope both can be biased and given the write-ups of his behavior in this specific case it appears this judge was indeed biased.

Are there any provably unbiased judges anywhere?

If so, what are their names?

(Anticipating: "Oh, WELL THEN, let's just allow slightly- to very-biased judges to roam the countryside like longneck dinosaurs!" As if that's not what already happens, on both sides of the aisle, all the way up to the USSC.)

[aREDSKIN]

Are there any provably unbiased judges anywhere?

So we're in agreement that this judge was indeed biased?

[generaltso]

westboro baptist will not be happy about this.

[mjah]

So we're in agreement that this judge was indeed biased?

Logically, we'll also have to agree that your definition of "biased" is biased. As is everyone's. So for small to moderate values of "biased," it's essentially meaningless. A point without a tip.

The only binding bias is that of the Supreme Court. Which is to say, Kennedy. I think I can guess how the other 8 would want to rule.

[NavyDave]

Wow!! Who would have thunk a liberal Activist Judge in California would go against the will of the people and that the judge just happens to be gay.

As has been stated, Liberals / Progressives count on Judicial activism when their agenda can't be passed by legislation or with help via the ballot box.

State rights do not mean Jack if the Liberal / Progressive Regime's agenda isn't supported by those states rights.

[Madison Redskin]

How would have gays felt if this case was before a judge in Salt Lake City, Utah?

Ummm, I think they would have been rather perplexed, since Proposition 8 was adopted into California law by California voters.

[Madison Redskin]

Wow!! Who would have thunk a liberal Activist Judge in California would go against the will of the people and that the judge just happens to be gay.

As has been stated, Liberals / Progressives count on Judicial activism when their agenda can't be passed by legislation or with help via the ballot box.

State rights do not mean Jack if the Liberal / Progressive Regime's agenda isn't supported by those states rights.

The same could be said for the Conservatives who count on judicial activism when their agenda can't be passed by legislation or with help via the ballot box. Remember what happened to the DC and Chicago gun laws? :secret:

I recently saw a study (can't find the link) that showed that the conservative justices on the SCOTUS voted in favor of overturning legislation more often than the liberal justices. Yet, when a conservative court overturns legislation, they are "upholding the constitution"," whereas when liberal courts do the same thing, they are "activist justices." What a bunch of BS.

[NavyDave]

I am impressed not surprised how in less than 2 years liberals and progressives in the peoples republic of Calif, they have showed 7 million people that their votes do not mean pigeon stuff.

Well to liberals and progressives there the votes are worth pigeon stuff if they don't vote with them.

[NavyDave]

The same could be said for the Conservatives who count on judicial activism when their agenda can't be passed by legislation or with help via the ballot box. Remember what happened to the DC and Chicago gun laws? :secret:

Wrong that was not judicial activism. That was accurately interpreting the US Constitution and granting citizens the right to protect themselves, one of the reasons I enjoyed living in Virginia and Maryland was being able to keep my guns and protect my home, unlike until recently those poor ole white and hispanics as well as Asian senior citizens having to deal with home invasions and assaults in broad daylight in DC and Chicago. Those news stories of 75 and 80 year old grandmas scaring off burgulars and attempted rapists with a handgun or shotgun should just sit back and be a victim because those mean ole conservative judges unfairly gave them the right to own a gun like the rest of the nation

I recently saw a study (can't find the link) that showed that the conservative justices on the SCOTUS voted in favor of overturning legislation more often than the liberal justices. Yet, when a conservative court overturns legislation, they are "upholding the constitution"," whereas when liberal courts do the same thing, they are "activist justices." What a bunch of BS. Such as what?? What legislation are conservative judges wanting to overturn?