Federal Judge overturns Prop 8 in California.

[Vigilante]

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex***ling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Should be interesting to see what happens in the supreme court.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I've been getting updates on this battle for quite a while now, and it is good to see it overturned in my opinion.

At this point though, everyone expected it to be taken further by either side.

 

[Cancer]

Woot, sanity restores in California. Here's hoping to see it spread to the rest of the country. Would be nice to live in a country of equality.

 

[Raziaar]

This is going to cause a whining shitstorm greater than or equal to the one against prop 8.

 

[Ridge]

Good on the courts.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Woot, sanity restores in California.

Not by a longshot

But great, great news nonetheless. Making me happier to be a Californian for sure.

 

[No Limit]

I just don't see how any court in this country could argue that gay marriage is not a legal right. I can't believe it's taking so long for this to get to the supreme court.

I think Bush and the fundies knew this would never uphold in court that's why they wanted to amend nd the constitution to ban it.

 

[T-6000]

Homosexual civil rights have always been a convenient issue for politicians to dig at when faced with real domestic and foreign issues. Instead of focusing on important issues, they go after Homosexuals. Like it or not, these politicians should understand that Homosexuals are americans, and that they have full access to every civil rights and liberties other americans enjoy. Unfortunately the majority of people here where I live (being Hardcore Christians) believe that there should be a ban on gay marriage. And some have even want beyond that, such as a ban on homosexuals adopting and being barred from attending certain public places (especially where there are alot of young kids, so that kids don't get 'confused'.). Also, many here don't believe that Homosexual behavior is natural, they believe that Homosexuals are being 'tricked and deceived' be the devil.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The lawyer who defended Bush and the lawyer who defended Gore working together to overturn Prop 8? If only this had happened during the presidential election; what better symbol of a united, progressive, hopeful America can you imagine?

They should make a movie about it. Like a kind of buddy courtroom movie.

 

[Ridge]

You mean like Philadelphia?

 

[Maestro]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/

Troll that shit.

 

[Ridge]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/

Troll that shit.

Hit

53.7% Yes, Prop 8 is unConstitutional

 

[Krynn72]

And 37% of the people don't care what the judge thinks about the constitution. Oh right-wing, the thing I love most about you is how hypocritical you are.

 

[Mr Stabby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow

 

[Ridge]

And 37% of the people don't care what the judge thinks about the constitution. Oh right-wing, the thing I love most about you is how hypocritical you are.

I am in favor of gay marriage, but nothing is in the Constitution about marriage. The government NEEDS to get out of it and stay out of it. Leave it to churches whether or not they want to marry someone to someone else...

 

[No Limit]

Equal protection under the law is in the constitution. You right wingers are funny when you pretend if it's not spelled out directly in the constitution it must not be constitutional. Colbert made fun this the other night with his Barney Frank interview.

 

[Druckles]

Marriage is no longer solely a religious thing.

 

[Cancer]

Don't churches get a good cut from the cost of a marriage. The whole ceremony, preperations and what not? Shouldn't they be a bit more excited that essentially now they will be receiving more "customers". And churches are already tax-exempt establishments.

Sounds like money to their ears.

 

[Matorbogl]

I imagine the gay rights advocates will succeed again in the appeals court, but I have a harder time believing the Roberts court wont simply overturn it in another 5-4 decision. This is also implying the SCOTUS will even hear the case in the first place

Regardless, gay marriage will go to the Supreme Court, and the opinions will be very, very interesting to read.

 

[No Limit]

I don't think even the Roberts supreme court would overturn this ruling. There would be no question after that point that they are political hacks.

 

[David.Seth2]

Leave it to churches whether or not they want to marry someone to someone else...

I do support the right for religious institutions to chose who they want (or not) to marry. But not everyone gets married in churches. Many get hitched at their local court. But either way, I personally believe, even as a Christian, that gays should have the right to marry. We don't live in a theocracy.

 

[Yuri]

It's so arcane that marriage is still intertwined with religion. Nobody should require individual religious institutions to perform marriages they oppose, but no one should deny the tax and rights-related official citizenship status for any couple.

The problem is how most interpret marriage as the very religion-inspired series of age-old traditions, which makes it appear to the die-hard religious that homosexuality is infiltrating their personal beliefs. I really don't know how official marriage works, either, but I would also assume that not every church is required to hold service for every proposed marriage and that government marriage-status is filed independently. In the end I really just don't understand why anyone would be opposed for any other reason than pure bigotry or ignorance to the government definition of marriage.

 

[StarBob]

I don't know how the modern generation can see marriage as anything remotely sacred. When Generation Y turns in to the majority voters, things like this won't even be an issue since we've all seen the divorce rate jump up to and exceed 50% and everyday we see marriages that don't last past a year...

Nothing sacred or divine about that.

I mean I don't know what the big deal is at all. Seems like a non-issue to me.

 

[Dan]

Why not just completely separate government and marriage? If you want to say you're married, that's your business. Tax em all the same.

 

[ríomhaire]

Why not just completely separate government and marriage? If you want to say you're married, that's your business. Tax em all the same.

Try sorting out the inheritance and guardianship when someone dies then. Legal marriage plays a very important role. That said, my preferred option would just be to change the word "marriage" in all laws to be "civil union" and open it to everyone. That way people can decide what a marriage is themselves while still keeping all the current legal protections offered to marriages.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Try sorting out the inheritance and guardianship when someone dies then. Legal marriage plays a very important role. That said, my preferred option would just be to change the word "marriage" in all laws to be "civil union" and open it to everyone. That way people can decide what a marriage is themselves while still keeping all the current legal protections offered to marriages.

Heh. Change the definition of everyone's marriage under the law, including the ones of those opposed to same-sex marraiges, for the benefit of those very same same-sex marriages? "Good luck, you'll need it!"

 

[ríomhaire]

Heh. Change the definition of everyone's marriage under the law, including the ones of those opposed to same-sex marraiges, for the benefit of those very same same-sex marriages? "Good luck, you'll need it!"

No, not at all. Change the word used in all the laws, leaving everything else in the law about marriage exactly as it is now. It's not to benefit same-sex couples more than anyone else. It just removes the pre-conceptions associated with the word "marriage" from the legal side of things. Basically, you go to the court for the civil union and the church (or whatever you like yourself) for the marriage.

 

[StarBob]

Try sorting out the inheritance and guardianship when someone dies then. Legal marriage plays a very important role. That said, my preferred option would just be to change the word "marriage" in all laws to be "civil union" and open it to everyone. That way people can decide what a marriage is themselves while still keeping all the current legal protections offered to marriages.

That's a very utopian solution. If only people would FREAK THE **** OUT if suddenly they weren't "married" anymore but in a civil union. Plus it would **** up basically every form in the entire country... and as many forms as I've been creating and programming on... I'd be unhappy just to change them all.

 

[Dan]

Try sorting out the inheritance and guardianship when someone dies then. Legal marriage plays a very important role. That said, my preferred option would just be to change the word "marriage" in all laws to be "civil union" and open it to everyone. That way people can decide what a marriage is themselves while still keeping all the current legal protections offered to marriages.

Do we really need a legal state of marriage? Fatherhood and motherhood still would exist. Your wife is still the mother of your children. Were you to die, she would be the guardian. Your inheritence goes to your children or next of kin or whomever you name in your will. If you aren't a bastard, you would probably put your wife in your will, but maybe you don't want to.

 

[ríomhaire]

Do we really need a legal state of marriage? Fatherhood and motherhood still would exist. Your wife is still the mother of your children. Were you to die, she would be the guardian.

What about a couple adopting? What if the father dies and the mother gets together with a new man who raises the child with the mother? These are not simple issues.

Your inheritence goes to your children or next of kin or whomever you name in your will. If you aren't a bastard, you would probably put your wife in your will, but maybe you don't want to.

I don't know the situation in the states but I believe here spouses and kids get exempt from inheritance-related taxes, which can be quite sizeable. Should that immunity be done away with?

 

[Dan]

What about a couple adopting? What if the father dies and the mother gets together with a new man who raises the child with the mother? These are not simple issues.

Adoption papers are usually filled out by two people. This would still be the case. Marriage has nothing to do with it. The new man is not the father of his partners children, nor would he be were he married under current laws. Only if guardianship were transferred to him would he be the father of those children. You have only pointed out how easily marriage relationships can be dissolved and changed. Makes things simpler not to have them.

I don't know the situation in the states but I believe here spouses and kids get exempt from inheritance-related taxes, which can be quite sizeable. Should that immunity be done away with?

Yes to the spouses, no to the kids.

 

[Mogi67]

Do we really need a legal state of marriage? Fatherhood and motherhood still would exist. Your wife is still the mother of your children. Were you to die, she would be the guardian. Your inheritence goes to your children or next of kin or whomever you name in your will. If you aren't a bastard, you would probably put your wife in your will, but maybe you don't want to.

Why should the institution of marriage be done away with? Because people can't keep commitments? Responsible commitment is absolutely essential to society, especially in raising children

 

[Dan]

Not the institution of marriage, the legal institution of marriage. Get married all you like, just don't expect the government to care. It is not the governments job to make people be responsible and keep commitments or keep track of what is going on in your personal life.