Prop 8 Overturned by Federal Judge in San Francisco

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Do you think the judge was right in his ruling? Do you think that the judge violated the will of voters in California? I read comments on news sites that if voters decide on an issue that should be the end of it and that the judge violated the principles of democracy?

[CaliKid24]

Umm I think it's a great ruling. I saw a new poll on it and 56% of californians want gay marriage legalized

[Amnesiac]

When something is unconstitutional or infringes on the rights of others, we shouldn't care about whether it was voted in or not. Al Gore got the majority vote in the 2000 election, but Bush "won" the election, that goes against the principles of democracy as well. The U.S. isn't a full-fledged democracy, it just borrows bits and pieces of the ideology, which is a good thing in cases like this.

I also believe proposition 8 was passed by religious groups buying votes, not by the people.

[dontknow2010]

I'm indifferent on whether prop 8 is overturned or not... Whatever happens happens. What I found kind of unfair was that the judge was openly gay so he was probably biased (very probably) on his decision.

"If an openly gay judge can rule on same-sex marriage, we should just let cases about endangered species be decided by a manatee." - Stephen Colbert


Al Gore got the majority vote in the 2000 election, but Bush "won" the election, that goes against the principles of democracy as well. T


Even though Al Gore won the popular vote, he didn't win the majority of the Electoral College votes, since the very disputed Florida results declared Bush the winner in FL. This is aside from the Supreme Court Case, Bush v. Gore, that also resolved the issue.

[Amnesiac]

I'm indifferent on whether prop 8 is overturned or not... Whatever happens happens. What I found kind of unfair was that the judge was openly gay so he was probably biased (very probably) on his decision.

"If an openly gay judge can rule on same-sex marriage, we should just let cases about endangered species be decided by a manatee." - Stephen Colbert

Thanks to appeals this will most likely end up in the Supreme Court, which has no gay members as we all know, so any accusations of bias can be undone by whatever decision they come to.

Even though Al Gore won the popular vote, he didn't win the majority of the Electoral College votes, since the very disputed Florida results declared Bush the winner in FL. This is aside from the Supreme Court Case, Bush v. Gore, that also resolved the issue.

I know, I was using that as an example of how the United States is not a full-fledged democracy. We can't use the "this goes against the principles of democracy!" argument when talking about the overturning of Prop 8 as the United States is NOT a democracy.

In either a republic or democracy this law would probably end up being overturned anyway as it is discriminatory against homosexuals.

[Nexus]

I'm fine with it. And the 14th amendment essentially backs the ruling. As many people would like to claim it's a slap in the face of democracy, the volume of voters do not override the federal constitution.

[Sith Lord 13]

I am, as a rule, against legislation from the bench. No matter how well intentioned, no matter how noble, it is not the basis this country was founded on. I also frown upon the fact that a homosexual judge did not recuse himself. If you're close to an issue, no matter how well intentioned, your judgment will be clouded.

I believe the answer is another referendum, designed to overturn Prop 8. Not judicial disregard for the wishes of the people.

[Amnesiac]

I am, as a rule, against legislation from the bench. No matter how well intentioned, no matter how noble, it is not the basis this country was founded on. I also frown upon the fact that a homosexual judge did not recuse himself. If you're close to an issue, no matter how well intentioned, your judgment will be clouded.

I believe the answer is another referendum, designed to overturn Prop 8. Not judicial disregard for the wishes of the people.

The judge isn't officially gay, that's just a rumor. He's actually considered to be pretty conservative, judicially.

But he has a point: under the 14th amendment, this could violate the Equal Protections Clause. The United States is founded on democratic principles, yes, but it is also founded on a system where the majority holds the same rights as the minority. When minorities are threatened it's the job of the government to step in and equalize.

[Sith Lord 13]

The judge isn't officially gay, that's just a rumor. He's actually considered to be pretty conservative, judicially.

My apologies then. I was misinformed.

But he has a point: under the 14th amendment, this could violate the Equal Protections Clause. The United States is founded on democratic principles, yes, but it is also founded on a system where the majority holds the same rights as the minority. When minorities are threatened it's the job of the government to step in and equalize.

The people don't believe that clause applies. The people do not feel that is right, otherwise it wouldn't have passed. Judicial review for senate bills is appropriate, but when the people as a whole decide something, it is not for one man to say their opinions are invalid.

[Nexus]

Then an appeal should be in the works. The judge did his job by the book, and prop 8 was in violation of the 14th amendment.

[Amnesiac]

The people don't believe that clause applies. The people do not feel that is right, otherwise it wouldn't have passed. Judicial review for senate bills is appropriate, but when the people as a whole decide something, it is not for one man to say their opinions are invalid.

If the United States were not a constitutional republic but a democracy, you would have a point. There are plenty of cases where the majority has made a decision and the judicial branch has overturned it, albeit with criticism. That's their job, to make the right decisions even when they don't have the support of the population.

Besides, new polls show that Californians are much more in support of gay marriage than before. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/support-for-gay-marriage-has-grown-in-recent-years-new-poll-finds.html)

Then an appeal should be in the works. The judge did his job by the book, and prop 8 was in violation of the 14th amendment.

An appeal is in the works and will most likely end up at the Supreme Court, where we could see a dramatic change to the entire gay marriage debate.

[huginnmuninn]

i dont see why theres even got to be a law about it gay marriges dont hurt any body and they dont affect anybody

[Sith Lord 13]

Besides, new polls show that Californians are much more in support of gay marriage than before. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/support-for-gay-marriage-has-grown-in-recent-years-new-poll-finds.html)

So why not just launch another referendum?

[Amnesiac]

So why not just launch another referendum?

It would cost absurd amounts of money, in the billions, and would probably result in the right buying out votes again. The cheapest and best way to handle this situation of inequality is to let it pass through the court system.

[I.J.]

Umm I think it's a great ruling. I saw a new poll on it and 56% of californians want gay marriage legalized

It's too bad though that almost half of Californians don't support gay marriage though...:(

It's a good thing prop 8 got overturned though! :D

[NeverTooLate]

i dont see why theres even got to be a law about it gay marriges dont hurt any body and they dont affect anybody

agreed, but all anyone ever use against it is the bible

[prettyprincess]

Do you think the judge was right in his ruling? Do you think that the judge violated the will of voters in California? I read comments on news sites that if voters decide on an issue that should be the end of it and that the judge violated the principles of democracy?


The majority has never really ruled in this country. That was more of an idea that they founding fathers created in order to gain support in the fight against England.

More to the question, who cares if the judge violated the voters rights if the voters were violating the rights of another group. It is a judges job to protect the minority from the majority because the majority does not need help protecting itself. If the majority always got to decide everything then there would still be segregation against blacks in the south.

We always say that democracy rules in this country but the truth is the constitution rules, and it is clearly unconstitutional to withhold a right from a group of people just because of their lifestyle choices.

[Amnesiac]

The majority has never really ruled in this country. That was more of an idea that they founding fathers created in order to gain support in the fight against England.

More to the question, who cares if the judge violated the voters rights if the voters were violating the rights of another group. It is a judges job to protect the minority from the majority because the majority does not need help protecting itself. If the majority always got to decide everything then there would still be segregation against blacks in the south.

We always say that democracy rules in this country but the truth is the constitution rules, and it is clearly unconstitutional to withhold a right from a group of people just because of their lifestyle choices.

I agree totally, when the rights of another group are infringed, the judicial branch has to step in.

[Sage]

The majority has never really ruled in this country. That was more of an idea that they founding fathers created in order to gain support in the fight against England.

More to the question, who cares if the judge violated the voters rights if the voters were violating the rights of another group. It is a judges job to protect the minority from the majority because the majority does not need help protecting itself. If the majority always got to decide everything then there would still be segregation against blacks in the south.

We always say that democracy rules in this country but the truth is the constitution rules, and it is clearly unconstitutional to withhold a right from a group of people just because of their lifestyle choices.
In simpler terms:

In our democracy, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner, it is guaranteed that it will not be the sheep.

[Jess]

I'm fine with it. And the 14th amendment essentially backs the ruling. As many people would like to claim it's a slap in the face of democracy, the volume of voters do not override the federal constitution.

This.

I'm fine with it also

[Church]

Hmm, hope something like Prop 8 comes back.

[huginnmuninn]

Hmm, hope something like Prop 8 comes back.

why? im pretty sure gay marriges dont affect anyone but the gay people and all it does is give the right to marry

[Church]

I think its morally wrong.

[huginnmuninn]

so because you think its morally wrong nobody can do it?

[NeverTooLate]

so because you think its morally wrong nobody can do it?

hes one of them close minded idiots no use :\

[Sith Lord 13]

Honestly, the way I see it, his ruling is in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. It is at the discretion of the states, and the people of said states to make this decision.

EDIT:
hes one of them close minded idiots no use :\
Please, no ad hominum attacks. Argue the issues.

[Amnesiac]

Honestly, the way I see it, his ruling is in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. It is at the discretion of the states, and the people of said states to make this decision.

It's well known that some amendments are considered more important than others. For example, the judicial branch holds the first amendment in a higher position than the second. I would consider the 14th amendment to be much more important than the 9th and 10th amendments, considering how the Civil War has stripped states of much of their once-glorious power. California's voters violated the homosexual population's 14th amendment rights. Therefore, the proposition must go.

[NeverTooLate]

Honestly, the way I see it, his ruling is in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. It is at the discretion of the states, and the people of said states to make this decision.

EDIT:

Please, no ad hominum attacks. Argue the issues.

sorry :P just got on my damn nervous

[Rainstorm]

I think its morally wrong.

So by your logic, it's morally right to allow two people that hate each other to marry before two gays that love each other?

[Jess]

Hmm, hope something like Prop 8 comes back.

it won't be

why deny two people who love each the chance to marry even if they are gay?

I hope very soon gay marriage will be allowed in all 50 states

[CaptainObvious]

Honestly, the way I see it, his ruling is in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. It is at the discretion of the states, and the people of said states to make this decision.

Only insofar as those states do not violate the federal Constitution in making their decisions. The federal Constitution has always held primacy over states to the extent that they conflict. Also, the 9th and 10th amendments only define what ought to be done with things that are not covered by the Constitution, they do not preclude the Constitution from enforcing its other clauses open states or citizens.

[Amnesiac]

So by your logic, it's morally right to allow two people that hate each other to marry before two gays that love each other?

I have to add, just because someone thinks it's morally wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. We all have different morals, and I don't want anybody's morals being shoved down anyone else's throats.

"Family values" and crap like that are just opinions. They're not the moral basis for every citizen.

[deadpie]

I think its morally wrong.

In ROTW we have this thing called explaining your opinions. Like backing up what you're saying with smart reasons.

[Nexus]

I would consider proposition 8 a starting point for further legalized discrimination.

If gays can't marry, are we going to prohibit marriage to illegal immigrants, or communists, or any other minority? If such a standard is set, it has the potential of becoming a green light for further referendums of the like.

[Sage]

I would consider proposition 8 a starting point for further legalized discrimination.

If gays can't marry, are we going to prohibit marriage to illegal immigrants, or communists, or any other minority? If such a standard is set, it has the potential of becoming a green light for further referendums of the like.

Not really, that's just as valid an argument as saying that legalizing gay marriage just opens the door for people marrying lampshades and house pets. Both views are equally asinine.

[Nexus]

Not really, that's just as valid an argument as saying that legalizing gay marriage just opens the door for people marrying lampshades and house pets. Both views are equally asinine.

Who's to say that marriage against illegals or those of alternate political beliefs can't be rationalized to appear unlawful? That's what they tried to do with prop 8. Those campaigning for it were able to convey a message that gays being able to marry essentially was a slap in the face of tradition and therefore must be be made unlawful.

Never underestimate the power of aggressive campaigning.

[Amnesiac]

Who's to say that marriage against illegals or those of alternate political beliefs can't be rationalized to appear unlawful? That's what they tried to do with prop 8. Those campaigning for it were able to convey a message that gays being able to marry essentially was a slap in the face of tradition and therefore must be be made unlawful.

Never underestimate the power of aggressive campaigning.

A person's political opinions and possibly legal status don't come into play when they get married. Nobody asks the bride or groom if they're a communist or not. However, when a homosexual couple gets married it's blatantly obvious to everyone that they're gay.

[Nexus]

Yeah, well, that doesn't mean things can't change. Stripping the rights of a group of people anywhere can result in the furthering of such everywhere.

It also gives a larger excuse for wide scale discrimination in regions where civil rights don't receive the same amount of recognition.

[Antares]

Do you think the judge was right in his ruling? Do you think that the judge violated the will of voters in California? I read comments on news sites that if voters decide on an issue that should be the end of it and that the judge violated the principles of democracy?

I think that the judge was right in his ruling.
Mostly because we appointed him to follow the constitution and the letter of the law and stuff and thats what he did.
He didn't violate the will of voters in California because Prop 8 was worded in such a way that confused voters so it wasn't even fair in the first place.

The voters didn't decide conclusively on the issue in my opinion and even if people vote to discriminate against others, that is why we have sane and educated people to judge what we do.

So ehh, I think he is fine, and I think its a little ridiculous to think that he is somehow violating the principles of democracy when everything that he did was legal and it was the right thing to do.


EDIT:

I want to clarify that Prop 8 was both morally and legally unjust in the first place. It was unconstitutional and it should never have been there.
It is discrimination and violates federal law.
You can not discriminate against people based on homosexuality.
So even if it is a conflict of interest, he is still protecting the law and I have a lot of respect for that judge.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, well, that doesn't mean things can't change. Stripping the rights of a group of people anywhere can result in the furthering of such everywhere.

It also gives a larger excuse for wide scale discrimination in regions where civil rights don't receive the same amount of recognition.

Is it possible? Yes. However, there's no religious backlash against the groups you mentioned. The only reason gays are so scrutinized is because of religion. Take the Bible out of the equation and there's no basis for the conservative argument.

So it is possible, but not probable.

[Nexus]

Depends what you consider religious backlash (http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/28/worldview/) to be. =P

[Tiberius]

In simpler terms:

In our democracy, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner, it is guaranteed that it will not be the sheep.

The quote is this: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

According to our constitution, a federal judge cannot contest a law enacted by the majority of the voters, for it is the direct wish of the populace. Federal judges can only review and contest laws enacted by elected legislators. Besides, it is especially wrong for a judge with a serious bias towards the case to even review it in the first place and then overturn it when he's an openly gay man.

[Nexus]

The quote is this: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

According to our constitution, a federal judge cannot contest a law enacted by the majority of the voters, for it is the direct wish of the populace. Federal judges can only review and contest laws enacted by elected legislators. Besides, it is especially wrong for a judge with a serious bias towards the case to even review it in the first place and then overturn it when he's an openly gay man.

An openly gay man? It has never been confirmed nor denied that he is gay, so it's merely a rumor.

People are going to paint biases whenever the opportunity arises. You could just as easily say a straight judge ruling in favor of the referendum wouldn't have the best interest of the LGBT community in mind and made his ruling based on his own beliefs. There's very few ways to confirm biases when the situation is something as ambiguous as the law.

[Tiberius]

An openly gay man? It has never been confirmed nor denied that he is gay, so it's merely a rumor.

People are going to paint biases whenever the opportunity arises. You could just as easily say a straight judge ruling in favor of the referendum wouldn't have the best interest of the LGBT community in mind and made his ruling based on his own beliefs. There's very few ways to confirm biases when the situation is something as ambiguous as the law.

New York Times
Since those days, several published reports have stated that the judge is himself gay. In February, The San Francisco Chronicle called it an “open secret.” Critics have argued that his sexual orientation was a source of bias that should have disqualified him from hearing the Proposition 8 case. Judge Walker has declined to discuss the matter.
It looks like someone doesn't like facts.

[Nexus]

The San Francisco chronicle =\= Judge Vaughn R. Walker

[Perseus]

The quote is this: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

According to our constitution, a federal judge cannot contest a law enacted by the majority of the voters, for it is the direct wish of the populace. Federal judges can only review and contest laws enacted by elected legislators. Besides, it is especially wrong for a judge with a serious bias towards the case to even review it in the first place and then overturn it when he's an openly gay man.

Wouldn't have a straight male been likely to bias since most straight people don't want gay marriage? I don't see why it's a big deal because he's gay. If a straight judge said "no", no one would be making this giant controversy.

[huginnmuninn]

he is not openly gay just because a person says someone is gay doesnt mean he is gay

[CaptainObvious]

The quote is this: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

According to our constitution, a federal judge cannot contest a law enacted by the majority of the voters, for it is the direct wish of the populace. Federal judges can only review and contest laws enacted by elected legislators. Besides, it is especially wrong for a judge with a serious bias towards the case to even review it in the first place and then overturn it when he's an openly gay man.

That's not true, Chris. Only amendments to the federal Constitution are immune to judicial review. Amendments to state constitutions, while they may be a direct wish of the populace, must not conflict with the federal Constitution or they are invalid. Thus, an amendment stating "the official religion of <x state> is Christianity" would be invalid regardless of how much of the population of that state wanted it.

[Church]

The thing bout this is even if it gets majority vote again people will try to get it overturned again, the people already made up their minds.

[The Batman]

The thing bout this is even if it gets majority vote again people will try to get it overturned again, the people already made up their minds.
It never should have went to the people in the first place. This is about human rights and what the public wants should never matter if it's hindering the rights of someone.

[Antares]

I watched an interview of a conservative guy that explained it so eloquently on Fox News.
I will try to fish out a clip of it without commentary but the guy is really awesome.

EJwSprkiInE

This guy accurately explains the judicial process that occured in this and why it should have happened and why this gay rights debate shouldn't even really exist

[Amnesiac]

I watched an interview of a conservative guy that explained it so eloquently on Fox News.
I will try to fish out a clip of it without commentary but the guy is really awesome.

EJwSprkiInE

This guy accurately explains the judicial process that occured in this and why it should have happened and why this gay rights debate shouldn't even really exist

He's on fox news!

That's pretty great.