Gay marriage judge question?

I have a question to ask ATS members.

As you know the judge ruled that prop 8 is unconstitutional. Whether his ruling is correct or not is still left up to the fates.

But i have 2 questions i want to ask you. These 2 questions have disturbed me.And i cant help but notice that no one has asked this to themselves. Is it because you personally agree with gay marriage? Is it because you are being partisan? is it because you are liberal?

Here are the 2 questions.

1.) Does it not bother you that the states REFUSED to defend Prop 8? The state essentially REFUSED to defend its own citizens vote. It refused to defend the will of the people. Whether or not the will of the people is correct is up to personal opinions. The reason the state refused to defend prop 8 was "we believe gays have the fundemental right to marry". EXCUSE ME? But the state government refused to defend the will of the people from being sued because the attorney general and the governor PERSONALLY did not agree with the WILL OF THE PEOPLE? None of this bothers you? The state should be OBLIGATED to defend the will of the people.Whether they personally agree with it or not.

2.) While im no expert to our judicial system i have a problem with the fact that just ONE federal judge can decide what is constitutional or unconstitutional. I have a problem when just ONE MAN,subject to personal bias and opinion decides what law is right and what law is wrong. I have a problem when just one federal judge with a chip on his shoulder can dictate that the will of 7 million people is wrong. I have a problem when ONE man subject to all human failngs could possibly let personal bias and opinion sway entire laws and set precident for future laws. I have a problem when one man with sole authority on GAY marriage...IS GAY.

I dont care what you say. This man will be biased against the defenders of prop 8. The judge essentially forced prop 8 into giving reasons why they wanted gay marriage to be banned. The arguments could be wrong.....but thats personal opinion.Everything comes down to personal opinion. Personal opinions can be wrong. The fact that just ONE personal opinion can destroy a law and set precident for future law is.....facist,dictorial,etc.

Do these two not bother you at all? Does this not set alarm bells off in your head? or are you too giddy in your victory of 'equal rights' to not notice? are you to smug and arrogant to notice? are you to busy thumbing your nose at conservatives? Does this not strike you as odd?

It strikes me as odd. In fact i would go as far as to say this.

This is bullcrap.

In this case: He made the correct call. Part of the purpose of the constitution is to not allow legislation against people in the minority.

A proper judge only cares about what is legal and just according to literal interpretation of the law and the constitution. Any judge who makes a decision over what 'ought' to be right, or based on a personal sense of morality is a bad judge.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
In this case: He made the correct call. Part of the purpose of the constitution is to not allow legislation against people in the minority.

A proper judge only cares about what is legal and just according to literal interpretation of the law and the constitution. Any judge who makes a decision over what 'ought' to be right, or based on a personal sense of morality is a bad judge.

But this is exactly what he did. TOO A FREAKIN TEA! he did not care about if it was just legal. He made some grand show by making the prop 8 defendents tell him the reason WHY they wanted gay marriage bannned. The proper judge would have not done that. The proper judge would have just looked to see if it was legal. He did not. He had them both give there reasons for why they thought the way he did. essentially he formed his PERSONAL opinion through the opinions of others.

Like YOU said

"A proper judge only cares about what is legal and just according to literal interpretation of the law and the constitution"

The proper judge would not have aksed for a reason. The proper judge would have just asked himself "is it legal?".

No this judge legislated on what he thought was right.

But like i said before. You did not answer my two questions. You cant just say "he was right" you have to answer my questions. Your post reeks of partisan. Im guess you agree with his decision because you agree with gay marriage.

1.)Does it bother you that the state GOV refused to defend the will of the people because they personally did not agree with it?

2.)Does it not bother you that ONE person subject to all human failings:bias,mistakes,etc. Gets to overturn laws and set precident for laws?






[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

reply to post by Nofoolishness


I take it then you have not bothered to actually read the finding?
The judge pointed out that moral outrage is not sufficient to remove public rights with public benefits from a class of people. Same logic as used to allow interracial marriage etc..

Edit:

1.)Does it bother you that the state GOV refused to defend the will of the people because they personally did not agree with it?

2.)Does it not bother you that ONE person subject to all human failings:bias,mistakes,etc. Gets to overturn laws and set precident for laws?

1: no. The law was unjust and held no legal merit. The state knew that this was merely a couple of religious groups making a move to enact laws and held no real power to intervene.

2: No. Because this is not a one man stop. There are several more appeal options before it could be heard by the supreme court. You assert the reason is not 'reasonable' to have asked. This is incorrect. This was placing a law that relegated a class of citizens unable to access rights. Therefor the reason is all that matters as well as proof that the reason is in fact just.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

I take it then you have not bothered to actually read the finding?
The judge pointed out that moral outrage is not sufficient to remove public rights with public benefits from a class of people. Same logic as used to allow interracial marriage etc..

Edit:

1.)Does it bother you that the state GOV refused to defend the will of the people because they personally did not agree with it?

2.)Does it not bother you that ONE person subject to all human failings:bias,mistakes,etc. Gets to overturn laws and set precident for laws?

1: no. The law was unjust and held no legal merit. The state knew that this was merely a couple of religious groups making a move to enact laws and held no real power to intervene.

2: No. Because this is not a one man stop. There are several more appeal options before it could be heard by the supreme court. You assert the reason is not 'reasonable' to have asked. This is incorrect. This was placing a law that relegated a class of citizens unable to access rights. Therefor the reason is all that matters as well as proof that the reason is in fact just.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by lordtyp0]

1.) is a personal opinion. I see no unjust law. Gay people have every right to marriage as we do. But the fact that the state refused to defend the WILL OF THE PEOPLE over personal reservations is just plain wrong. Like i said before the state should be OBLIGATED to defend the will of the people from lawsuits. You obviously cant see this because your opinion is tainted by personal bias...just like the judges.

2.)i recognize this fact. But i still think this would be better if groups of federal judges did this. I still think its too much power put in the hands of one person. How can you not see this? bias?

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

reply to post by Nofoolishness

1.) is a personal opinion. I see no unjust law. Gay people have every right to marriage as we do. But the fact that the state refused to defend the WILL OF THE PEOPLE over personal reservations is just plain wrong. Like i said before the state should be OBLIGATED to defend the will of the people from lawsuits. You obviously cant see this because your opinion is tainted by personal bias...just like the judges.

Are you saying I am bias for believing that all people and classes are entitled to any and all rights that are granted by the state in form of tax benefits, social benefits and misc others: such as right to visit in the hospital? and adding to health benefits?

Or, are you projecting onto me because you simply disagree with the judgment? You are also seeming to conflate multiple issues here. What exactly are you objecting to?

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

1.) is a personal opinion. I see no unjust law. Gay people have every right to marriage as we do. But the fact that the state refused to defend the WILL OF THE PEOPLE over personal reservations is just plain wrong. Like i said before the state should be OBLIGATED to defend the will of the people from lawsuits. You obviously cant see this because your opinion is tainted by personal bias...just like the judges.

Are you saying I am bias for believing that all people and classes are entitled to any and all rights that are granted by the state in form of tax benefits, social benefits and misc others: such as right to visit in the hospital? and adding to health benefits?

Or, are you projecting onto me because you simply disagree with the judgment? You are also seeming to conflate multiple issues here. What exactly are you objecting to?

Im objecting to

1.) The state not defending the law from law suit. This IMHO is like a dereliction of duty judiciasly.The state should be obligated to defend the will of the people...PERIOD.

2.Im objecting to the power just one federal judge seems to have. why can just one judge decide whats constitutional or not? yes i know we have the 9 circuits but still this is alot of power put into two hands.

No im not saying your biased because of that. But if you are biased because of that you are mistaken. Gays can get any of those benifits. Everyone is equal under the law. Any man can marry a woman. and any woman can marry a man. NO ONE can marry the same sex. all those benifits you mentioned can be obtained through marriage which the requirment is opposite gender.

This is why his ruling is wrong. He ruled under equal protection clause. Gays do have equal protection. and in some cases have better then heterosexual protection. Like all those hate crim bills and special laws about discrimination.

Furthermore earlier you said this-

"A proper judge only cares about what is legal and just according to literal interpretation of the law and the constitution"

If the judge followed your rules prop 8 would have been ruled consititutional. Because everyone has the same rights. Not my fault that they dont wish to exercise them. We are talking the LITERAL interpretation of the law...which my stance is.





[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

Justice Walker based his decision, not on whether Gays should or should not have the right to marry.


This interpetation of the decision is merely a Smoke Screen, a (possibly) willful attempt to distract and divert the public's attention away from the true thrust at the heart of a truly dangerous proposition.


The Justice's ruling was based on the fundemental principle that, under the constitution of the State of California (and in fact, the US Constitution as well) EVERY Citizen Is Entitled To EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW And Due Process to ensure that their Rights as citizens of the State (and/or nation) are not abridged.



A lot of unfortunately, ignorant people, are attempting to somehow claim that "one Judge has nullified the will of the voters".

That is, quite simply, BullS**t!


Proposition 8, by the way it was structured, essentially nullified itself because it sought to change the constitution of the State Illegally!


And yes, laws can be illegal. Even laws passed by a majority of voters.


The proposition, as the judge recognized, sought to, and would have established a separate "class" of citizen, within the general citizenry, which for no other reason than popular opinion would have been denied all of the same rights and and priviledges enjoyed by the rest of the population.

Justice Walker recognized that the term (and "institution" of) "marriage", under our laws, and in our society, carried certain, definable advantages not availble under any other contract. Therefore, to deny same-sex couples access to those rights and priviledges, by denying them access to the socially accepted union identified as "marriage" (and not something "like" a marriage), without just cause, was to deny such couples the rights and priviledges granted to every other citizen.


That is the basic definition of a violation of the precept of Equal Protection.

And it is unconstitutional, no matter how many voters are in favor of it!


Furthermore, to deny a group of citizens their constitutional right to equal protection without demostrating a factual and compelling reason for the denial is to deny them Due Process under the law; ALSO a violation of constitutional rights supposedly enjoyed by all citizens.


Justice Walker repeatedly attempted to elicit proof of a "compelling reason" to deny same-sex couples the right to equal protection and due process from the proponents of the proposition. But nothing more than historic references to "tradition" and opinions were ever offered in support of the ban.

Imagine the travesties of justice that would ensue if, in crimminal law, all that was required to convict an accused, to deny some one their liberty, and possibly their life, was an appeal to "tradition" and the, unproven, "opinion" that he/she was guilty.


The Justice really had no choice but to rule as he did.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Bhadhidar]

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Justice Walker based his decision, not on whether Gays should or should not have the right to marry.


This interpetation of the decision is merely a Smoke Screen, a (possibly) willful attempt to distract and divert the public's attention away from the true thrust at the heart of a truly dangerous proposition.


The Justice's ruling was based on the fundemental principle that, under the constitution of the State of California (and in fact, the US Constitution as well) EVERY Citizen Is Entitled To EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW And Due Process to ensure that their Rights as citizens of the State (and/or nation) are not abridged.



A lot of unfortunately, ignorant people, are attempting to somehow claim that "one Judge has nullified the will of the voters".

That is, quite simply, BullS**t!


Proposition 8, by the way it was structured, essentially nullified itself because it sought to change the constitution of the State Illegally!


And yes, laws can be illegal. Even laws passed by a majority of voters.


The proposition, as the judge recognized, sought to, and would have established a separate "class" of citizen, within the general citizenry, which for no other reason than popular opinion would have been denied all of the same rights and and priviledges enjoyed by the rest of the population.

Justice Walker recognized that the term (and "institution" of) "marriage", under our laws, and in our society, carried certain, definable advantages not availble under any other contract. Therefore, to deny same-sex couples access to those rights and priviledges, by denying them access to the socially accepted union identified as "marriage" (and not something "like" a marriage), without just cause, was to deny such couples the rights and priviledges granted to every other citizen.


That is the basic definition of a violation of the precept of Equal Protection.

And it is unconstitutional, no matter how many voters are in favor of it!


Furthermore, to deny a group of citizens their constituional right to equal protection without demostrating a factual and compelling reason for the denial is to deny them Due Process under the law; ALSO a violation of costitutional rights supposedly enjoyed by all citizens.


Justice Walker repeatedly attempted to elicit proof of a "compelling reason" to deny same-sex couples the right to equal protection and due process from the proponents of the proposition. But nothing more than historic references to "tradition" and opinions were ever offered in support of the ban.

Imagine the travesties of justice that would ensue if, in crimminal law, all that was required to convict an accused, to deny some one their liberty, and possibly their life, was an appeal to "tradition" and the, unproven, "opinion" that he/she was guilty.


The Justice really had no choice but to rule as he did.

But thats the problem smartbutt. No one is being denied the right to marry. Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex. is it my fault that they do not wish too? is it my fault? No but they have the right to do so.

This is just pure rank dishonesty. and you know this. This is why his ruling is faulty. Because it assumes gay people cant be married and rights are being denied to them. This is false. Anyone can marry the opposite sex. No one can marry the same sex. If a gay person wanted all the benifits of marriage they should have married the opposite sex.

Dont bring in attraction or sexual preferance either. Attraction,love,and even sex are not required for marriage.

It just so happens one of the requirments for marriage is opposite sex.

It would have been different but he ruled saying gays would be a different class of citizens which is intellectual dishonesty.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

reply to post by Nofoolishness


Technically, NO ONE has a "Constituional" Right to marry anyone.


(I'll otherwise ignore the personal diatribe; which, by the way is a direct violation of this forum's T & C's)


The determination of who can marry who is not written into the the State (or US) Constitution.

Laws establish who can marry who, and under what circumstances they can be married, not the constitution.


And, like it or not, all laws Must Conform to the precepts outlined by the Constitution!


The Law that limited the State's recognition of marriage to different-sexed couples only was deemed to be Unconstitutional because it required the State to deny those rights and advantages, thusly "married" couples enjoyed, to same-sex couples.

The law was uncostitutional because it denied Equal Protection to all the State's citizens. If a law is going to afford certain advantages, that law must be accessable to all citizens, without restrictions not supported by fact or cause.

It is not enough to say that "a gay man can marry a woman if he he wants the advantages being married affords".


The law, to comply with the precept of Equal Protection, must PROVE why he can only marry a woman to access those priviledges. And if he is to be denied those advantages, under Due Process, the law must prove why that denial is justified.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Bhadhidar]

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

Technically, NO ONE has a "Constituional" Right to marry anyone.


(I'll otherwise ignore the personal diatribe; which, by the way is a direct violation of this forum's T & C's)


The determination of who can marry who is not written into the the State (or US) Constitution.

Laws establish who can marry who, and under what circumstances they can be married, not the constitution.


And, like it or not, all laws Must Conform to the precepts outlined by the Constitution!


The Law that limited the State's recognition of marriage to different-sexed couples only was deemed to be Unconstitutional because it required the State to deny those rights and advantages, thusly "married" couples enjoyed, to same-sex couples.

The law was uncostitutional because it denied Equal Protection to all the State's citizens. If a law is going to afford certain advantages, that law must be accessable to all citizens, without restrictions not supported by fact or cause.

It is not enough to say that "a gay man can marry a woman if he he wants the advantages being married affords".


The law, to comply with the precept of Equal Protection, must PROVE why he can only marry a woman to access those priviledges. And if he is to be denied those advantages, under Due Process, the law must prove why that denial is justified.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Bhadhidar]

You are correct. There is no right of marriage in the consitution. But rights not mentioned in the consitution are given to the states or people.

Marriage is written into the state consitution under the tenth ammendment. The people decide what marriage is. Because thats what the constitution says to do.

Now im confused. First you say "Laws establish who can marry who, and under what circumstances they can be married, not the constitution"

Then you say

required the State to deny those rights and advantages, thusly "married" couples enjoyed, to same-sex couples

Which is confusing. How is this any different from single people? or what you are saying is.....just because someone is 'together' they deserve the benifits of marriage? is that what your saying?

i understand the last part of your argument.

But i question his bias. Him being a gay man himself. I dont care what you say he is obviously biased. So this will most certainly go to the 9 circuits or supreme court.

What does this ruling mean for the rest of the country? 45 other states have bans or statues in the state constitution stating marriage is between one man and one woman. will this essentially force other states into allowing gay marriage? or will it make it like it was prior to DOMA where each state votes up to decide?

Explanation: Flagged!

It is this simple.. My/[y]our inalienable rights TRUMPS the will of the people EVERYTIME! If they don't then maybe a revolution should be in order!

Personal Disclosure: lordtyp0 and Bhadhidar both earned a constellation of st*rs from me!

reply to post by Nofoolishness

If the judge followed your rules prop 8 would have been ruled consititutional. Because everyone has the same rights. Not my fault that they dont wish to exercise them. We are talking the LITERAL interpretation of the law...which my stance is.

Exactly.
A lesson in how this unfolded. The state interpreted all having the right to get married. Religious cons said "OH NOES!" and set forth in a not so honest campaign to get prop 8 passed which stripped the rights from one specific group-solely based on religious wants of the majority (hint: constitution also prohibits that part).
Ergo: The law and state viewed all having the right-hence allowing marriages.

Your repugnant game of saying "Gays have all the same rights if they don't want to be gay" simply shows how disingenuous you truly are here.

IMO: Marriages should have no legal right boosts whatsoever. They would be religious based and whatever religion wanted to bless could. The state would only recognize civil unions which would be between two consenting adults whether they wanted to be seen as mates or note.

After researching this a bit more and seeing judge walkers reasons all i can say is...WOW. what the heck lol.

-Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. (umm since when? just because the plaintiffs brought in a few experts with hypothesis that does not get over the fact that there is no proof...NONE that people are born gay! biased much judge walker?)

-No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. (and how do you define 'credible'? judge walker? there you also go assuming people are born gay again with zero scientific proof what so ever to back it up. I dont care how many 'experts' you parade around judge....the fact remains that no proof exists)

-Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.(why? marriage is just a contract. sign the dotted line at the courthouse...that simple.)

-Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage. (yes....so why dont you gay guys go marry some women?)

-Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.(yes im not sure why this was even in the debate at all judge walker.....what does this have to do with gay marriage and the consitutionality of a gay mariage ban?)

-Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination. (yes....thats true...and your point is judge walker?)

-Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (why? what does this have to do with anything at all? im seriously wondering what any of these things have to do with this at all!)

Is this seriously what he based his decision off of?

Im sorry...but after reviewing this case all i have to say is it was a freakin pony show. im serious...look it up!

Im sorry but this judge ruling is on subjective and unsubstantiated views of current societal mores rather than on a neutral interpretation of the law.

Also i criticize the judges obvious bias and contention that certain facts about society were "beyond any doubt" or "beyond debate," such as Walker's contentions that same-sex parenting has been shown to be equally effective as opposite-sex parenting or that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not in any way negatively affect the rights of opponents of same-sex marriage. All of which are hotly contested.

Im sorry...but i smell judicial activism.

I can actually see him winning because of the equal protections clause but everything else will be picked apart because he was so obviously biased.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
After researching this a bet more and seeing judge walkers reasons all i can say is...WOW. what the heck lol.

-Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. (umm since when? just because the plaintiffs brought in a few experts with hypothesis that does not get over the fact that there is no proof...NONE that people are born gay! biased much judge walker?)

-No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. (and how do you define 'credible'? judge walker? there you also go assuming people are born again with zero scientific proof what so ever to back it up.)

-Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.(why? marriage is just a contract. sign the dotted line at the courthouse...that simple.)

-Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage. (yes....so why dont you gay guys go marry some women?)

-Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.(yes im not sure why this was even in the debate at all judge walker.....what does this have to do with gay marriage and the consitutionality of a gay mariage ban?)

-Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination. (yes....thats true...and your point is judge walker?)

-Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (why? what does this have to do with anything at all? im seriously wondering what any of these things have to do with this at all!)

Is this seriously what he based his decision off of?

Im sorry...but after reviewing this case all i have to say is it was a freakin pony show. im serious...look it up!

Im sorry but this judge ruling is on subjective and unsubstantiated views of current societal mores rather than on a neutral interpretation of the law.

Also i criticize the judges obvious bias and contention that certain facts about society were "beyond any doubt" or "beyond debate," such as Walker's contentions that same-sex parenting has been shown to be equally effective as opposite-sex parenting or that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not in any way negatively affect the rights of opponents of same-sex marriage. All of which are hotly contested.

Im sorry...but i smell judicial activism.

In other words, you don't really care about the legal side of this, you just wanted to rant and whine about them evil homossssexualssssssss.

Gotcha.

Moving on.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
After researching this a bet more and seeing judge walkers reasons all i can say is...WOW. what the heck lol.

-Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. (umm since when? just because the plaintiffs brought in a few experts with hypothesis that does not get over the fact that there is no proof...NONE that people are born gay! biased much judge walker?)

-No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. (and how do you define 'credible'? judge walker? there you also go assuming people are born again with zero scientific proof what so ever to back it up.)

-Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.(why? marriage is just a contract. sign the dotted line at the courthouse...that simple.)

-Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage. (yes....so why dont you gay guys go marry some women?)

-Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.(yes im not sure why this was even in the debate at all judge walker.....what does this have to do with gay marriage and the consitutionality of a gay mariage ban?)

-Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination. (yes....thats true...and your point is judge walker?)

-Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (why? what does this have to do with anything at all? im seriously wondering what any of these things have to do with this at all!)

Is this seriously what he based his decision off of?

Im sorry...but after reviewing this case all i have to say is it was a freakin pony show. im serious...look it up!

Im sorry but this judge ruling is on subjective and unsubstantiated views of current societal mores rather than on a neutral interpretation of the law.

Also i criticize the judges obvious bias and contention that certain facts about society were "beyond any doubt" or "beyond debate," such as Walker's contentions that same-sex parenting has been shown to be equally effective as opposite-sex parenting or that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not in any way negatively affect the rights of opponents of same-sex marriage. All of which are hotly contested.

Im sorry...but i smell judicial activism.

In other words, you don't really care about the legal side of this, you just wanted to rant and whine about them evil homossssexualssssssss.

Gotcha.

Moving on.

No i am doing the legal side of things. the only way he could win is through the equal protections clause. thats it...period. Every other reason stated above is bullcrap and will be picked apart. Because every claim he made was biased and unproven.

reply to post by Nofoolishness

No i am doing the legal side of things. the only way he could win is through the equal protections clause. thats it...period. Every other reason stated above is bullcrap and will be picked apart. Because every claim he made was biased and unproven.

None of anything you posted is relevant... at all.
California decided the right applied to all. Prop 8 tried to say "NUH UH! CAUSE THEY ARE ICKY!" the judge decided there had to be an actual valid reason to strip rights way from people.

End of chapter 1.
Chapter2 I predict will be a lot of neo con crap campaigning for this november, not's of cries of activistic judges while the con appointees give more and more power to companies and strip more and more power away from everyone else.

Notice that trend? Lefty judges tend to safeguard more rights and protections to all while con judges tend to just safeguard the rights and grant protections to those they golf with?

Chapter 3: the cons will try and get it to the U.S. supreme court where they hope the con appointed judges will see things their way... Only they wont. This is too hot button an issue for the right side of the political aisle. They like to sling gay rights more than the left side does... and abortion and many other things they will never actually do anything about for fear of ruining election poll turnouts..

Anyway, digression, again:

California decided all had the right.
Prop 8 was there to REMOVE the right.
The judge said there was insufficient cause to REMOVE A RIGHT from a class of people.


Long story short: The judge did the right thing by not allowing the frothing masses to remove rights because of course; Rights cannot be removed or legislated away.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

No i am doing the legal side of things. the only way he could win is through the equal protections clause. thats it...period. Every other reason stated above is bullcrap and will be picked apart. Because every claim he made was biased and unproven.

None of anything you posted is relevant... at all.
California decided the right applied to all. Prop 8 tried to say "NUH UH! CAUSE THEY ARE ICKY!" the judge decided there had to be an actual valid reason to strip rights way from people.

End of chapter 1.
Chapter2 I predict will be a lot of neo con crap campaigning for this november, not's of cries of activistic judges while the con appointees give more and more power to companies and strip more and more power away from everyone else.

Notice that trend? Lefty judges tend to safeguard more rights and protections to all while con judges tend to just safeguard the rights and grant protections to those they golf with?

Chapter 3: the cons will try and get it to the U.S. supreme court where they hope the con appointed judges will see things their way... Only they wont. This is too hot button an issue for the right side of the political aisle. They like to sling gay rights more than the left side does... and abortion and many other things they will never actually do anything about for fear of ruining election poll turnouts..

Anyway, digression, again:

California decided all had the right.
Prop 8 was there to REMOVE the right.
The judge said there was insufficient cause to REMOVE A RIGHT from a class of people.


Long story short: The judge did the right thing by not allowing the frothing masses to remove rights because of course; Rights cannot be removed or legislated away.

By california do you be the state government? the people never decided.

At bottom this is a legal decision. None of those 'facts' truly matter. If it goes to the courts they will focus more on the legal matters instead of the 'facts' he has had.

Walker was clearly trying to appelate...i dont think it will work.

In order to make a successful due process claim of this type, a plaintiff has to show that a “fundamental right” was denied and that “due process” wasn’t given.

Judge Walker ruled that the “fundamental right” in the case was the right to marry — and that it had been denied the plaintiffs. Its important to note that Walker didn’t say the right was to marry someone of a specific sex, which might not be defined as a “fundamental right,” rather the right to marry generally.

This is where he fails. because there is no consititutional right to 'marry Generally'. There is no 'fundamental right' to marriage period.

When a fundamental right(which does not exist by the way) is found to be denied without due process a court typically examines the rationale behind the deprivation very carefully.

This entire argument could be seen differently. Gays have never been denied the 'fundamental right' of marriage. They have been denied the right to same-sex marriage. Such a right would not be seen as 'fundamental' and would garner less court protection.

Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to everyone.

Under Fourteenth Amendment precedent, any law that puts a group of people into a different class, will also be viewed with a certain amount of scrutiny. But how much scrutiny depends on a variety of factors.

But the problem with this is walker was acting on his own. He has had no guidence from the supreme court.

The supreme court has never told judges and legal what nots what to test.how to test it. This means this entire case hinges on equal protections clause.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

reply to post by Nofoolishness

Judge Walker ruled that the “fundamental right” in the case was the right to marry — and that it had been denied the plaintiffs. Its important to note that Walker didn’t say the right was to marry someone of a specific sex, which might not be defined as a “fundamental right,” rather the right to marry generally.

This is where he fails. because there is no consititutional right to 'marry genrally'. There is no 'fundamental right' to marriage period.

Ahh, but thats the pickle and the rub. Marriage holds a legal recognition to it. It also grants special rights and additional privileges. If the government grants rights based on this status. Then it cannot be a protected/exclusive status. I.E. If the majority holds the right. All hold the right.

rights include: hospital visitation, health benefits, tax filings/benefits etc. etc.

This was all spawned by there being nothing to define it in california. As per rational thought when it comes to law-that which is not prohibited is allowed. People started to get married. It was tested in courts and passed.

This is when prop 8 came in to the picture.

Now you can claim 'marriage is sacred' on religious grounds-which would not be within the governments area. This would be fine so long as it is acknowledged that just because religion A doesn't approve, religion B might.

After all I am presuming here that regardless of any outrage you might personally feel, you would not halt someone from visiting their partner in a hospital? at least I hope.

This means the objection as presented in your arguments stem from the religious side of it. To which, all I can say is: Get over it. It's a word that is recognized as having certain functions of commitment within humanity regardless of the language.. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to deny anyone capable of consenting to marry; the ability to marry.

IE: No actual valid reason prop 8 was ever brought up to challenge.

Te judge recognized it had no legal merit and quashed it after hearing both sides for a protracted length of time.

Protecting homosexual rights isn't that different from say protecting the religious and cultural beliefs of an aboriginal people. Both are things Christians are opposed to generally due to their believe they are 'right'.

There isn't going to be much proof about gay parenting etc ... in the current world climate unless we allow it to happen.

Most theories I've read point to the opposite of what people's religious beliefs are.

Furthermore with this issue try to find someone who *is* unbiased and educated to make that decision. Regardless of the persons credentials and how hetero they are the people who are against it will never be pleased.

And if anything their displeasure is in itself evidence of biological markers. Put two gay men in front of a straight man and tell me his reaction is both a choice, and completely rational. It's not, it's instinct and I can't imagine the gay men's actions being much different.

The points the judge made to me were valid IMO ... you state there is no 'proof' but all theories point in one direction and the religious go the other. There is no 100% proof on any side, therefore homosexuals aren't dangerous and them having rights is not dangerous either. The judge pointed this out.



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Pinke]