It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I think I just found my answer:


Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.



www.uscourts.gov...

So as stated in my previous post by this judge being Homosexual will end up nullifing the ruling and requiring an appeal as well as the judge facing ethics charges.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I, personally, could not care less about this issue. It does not affect me in any way, regardless of the outcome. And, if those supporters of Prop 8 were completely honest, this ruling will not affect them either.

Everyone should realize Prop 8 did not prohibit homosexual relationships. It merely prohibited California Counties from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. With that in mind, I have a few questions for those who are taking the stance of "equal protection" as related to obtaining a marriage license, which is the basis for Judge Walker's decision.

1) According to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk a person is required to present "proof of identity and age documents". If a person does not possess "proof" or chooses to not present that proof, should the license be issued? If not, isn't that discriminating against him/her? Is that person not entitled to "equal protection"?

2) Again, in L.A. County, if a person presents "proof of identity" written in a foreign language, it must be accompanied by a written English translation. If the license is denied, because of this clause, is that not discriminatory? "Equal protection"?

3) "The parties must be unmarried". If each individual is entitled to "equal protection" in matters of marriage licenses, how is it "Constitutional" to prohibit polygamy? Why should a person be subjected to the expense of attorney's fees and court costs, to dissolve a previous marriage, before obtaining a new license? Discriminatory?

4) In L.A. County, a person under the age of 18 must have parent, guardian or government (court) consent to obtain a marriage license. Are "minors" not entitled to "equal protection" as it relates to marriage licenses? What about two 17 year olds? Two 13 year olds? A 13 year old and a 23 year old? A 13 year old and a 63 year old?

Just saying, such claims of "equal protection" should be presented cautiously. Who should be empowered to set the boundaries? A majority of voters? A single, lifetime appointment Judge? An elected Judge? Nine lifetime appointment Judges? Perhaps, no one?

Not arguing the case, just setting the table with bowls full of thought!

By the way, maybe there is more than meets the eye, in this ruling. (This is a conspiracy site, after all)

LA County marriage licenses issued 2009 54,082 @ $90 = $4,867,380
.....................................................2008 62,157 @ $90 = $5,594,130
lavote.net...

It appears marriage licenses provide significant revenue to California counties. By what margin will that amount increase, with licenses being issued to same-sex couples? I'd be willing to bet the county authorities have already speculated on that number.

5) What if a couple is indigent and incapable of paying the $90 fee? "Equal protection"?


[edit on 4-8-2010 by WTFover]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Not buying that is like saying a heterosexual judge hearing a case where heterosexual people are involved, that has nothing to do with it.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Now I have a question.

The Judge that ruled in this case was Homosexual. His ruling would allow him to be married and thus could benifit financialy from his ruling.

Would this be an ethics violation?



You are mistaken.

His ruling does not make homosexual marriage legal. It simply states that a ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

Whether or not homosexuals can get married is currently up to each state's laws. (All homosexual marriages are currently unrecognized by the federal government due to the Defense of Marriage Act.)



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


www.uscourts.gov...

Let me make the rule larger so you can read it clearly.


Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.





The judge would clearly has a financial interest should he marry the same sex.

As Homosexuals are denied those married rights as of right now under federal law.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by SWCCFAN]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I am aware of the Defense of Marriage Act and I understand the arguement about the constitutionality of the Prop 8 but the judge should have not heard the case if he followed the ethics rules.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Well answer this.

Lets say this were a law prohibiting interracial marriage. Would a Judge of any race be able to decide on a case about interracial marriage without bias one way or another?

Its pretty much the same principle.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Jovi1]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Whether or not homosexuals can get married is currently up to each state's laws.


Actually, this ruling takes that right away from the States. The ruling overturns a State law, "lawfully" instituted by the voters of California.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Actually, this ruling takes that right away from the States. The ruling overturns a State law, "lawfully" instituted by the voters of California.


Are you referring to the unconstitutional vote? The one that is being overturned because of such?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I am aware of the Defense of Marriage Act and I understand the arguement about the constitutionality of the Prop 8 but the judge should have not heard the case if he followed the ethics rules.


How ridiculous. Your fears are showing.

Judges that reach this level stand on law - - not bias.

I'd say at this level - a judge might even go against his own personal belief - - in order to avoid bias.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


You have completly missed the point.

www.uscourts.gov...

Just read the Judicial rules of conduct for yourself.

1. There are financial benifits to being married right?
2. If gay marrage was legal on the federal level could he benifit financialy? I would think so.

ETA arguing with liberals is pointless the beleive they are right no matter what.

I guess liberally ignorance truly is bliss.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by SWCCFAN]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
So because you can not find a flaw in the actual judgement whether you agree with it or not you are now going to use personal attacks against the judge?

Could it be that you somehow doubt his overall ability to make the right decision because he is gay?

In situations like this it is very important to take a good long look at ourselves and figure out where our motivations really come from.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Did you notice my placing the term "lawfully" in quotations? It is yet to be determined. In my opinion, the ruling of a single Judge is not the end-all, be-all.

But, if you read this section of the Constitution of the State of California, the "law" was "Constitutionally" enacted...


ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.


Source

States rights? Arizona, California... Who's next? We'll see, though.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Just read the Judicial rules of conduct for yourself.

1. There are financial benifits to being married right?
2. If gay marrage was legal on the federal level could he benifit financialy? I would think so.


I've heard this argument before. On the large scale what's wrong with #2?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
So because you can not find a flaw in the actual judgement whether you agree with it or not you are now going to use personal attacks against the judge?

Could it be that you somehow doubt his overall ability to make the right decision because he is gay?

In situations like this it is very important to take a good long look at ourselves and figure out where our motivations really come from.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
To me the whole ethics issue boils down to in criminal cases and such, when people involved may be an acquaintance of a judge or related to them. I am pretty sure a homosexual judge can do his job just fine. His sexual preference should not be an indicator of bias, especially considering he must interpret the constitution fairly, which seems to be what he is doing. Just my 2 cents



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
This will go to the Supreme court.

It will be found constitutional as marriage is a State's right, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of what this one judge says.

There could be a legal basis on the Commerce Clause as it applies to multiple states at one time, but in regards to this one issue; California as a State has the right to ban homosexual marriages - will stand.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


No you are the one that missed the point. If this were an issue of interracial marriage no one could possibly be qualified to make a decision on the case because according to you they could possibly benefit financially from being able to marry someone outside their race.

It would be exactly the same thing the only difference being one is discriminatory based on race the other is discriminatory based on sexual orientation. Both are wrong.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Jovi1]

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Jovi1]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


WTFover deleted post[edit on 4-8-2010 by WTFover]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by WTFover]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Are not all the laws regarding marriage discriminating against those that are single? Why should married persons get a tax break?

Marriage is a contract to produce children. Homosexual couples cannot do that. If there are no children then marriage is not needed. Homosexual couples with children are a strange creation, now being done with artificial insemination and surrogate mothers.

Whats next? Cloning?







 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join