Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California

Discussion in 'User Submitted News' started by Vidboy10, Aug 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vidboy10
    OP

    Vidboy10 Tsardom

    Member
    2,617
    7
    Dec 15, 2008
    Canada
    Vancouver, B.C
    A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

    U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    [Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

    Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

    Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

    [Updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.

    “This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, minutes after Walker’s ruling was released. “From the start, this has been about basic fairness.”

    Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Prop 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”]

    Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

    Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

    Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

    The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

    An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

    The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

    A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

    Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

    But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.[/p]
    [​IMG]Source
     


  2. ball2012003

    ball2012003 Newbie

    nvrm
     
  3. murkurie

    murkurie GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    316
    1
    Feb 16, 2010
    United States
    California, Redlands
    so the voting majority doesn't matter any more?
     
  4. Canonbeat234

    Canonbeat234 Redeemed Temper

    Member
    2,278
    28
    Sep 24, 2008
    Hmmm, what do think Tempers? To me it just an opportunity for wild sexy parties with no limits.
     
  5. Guild McCommunist

    Guild McCommunist (not on boat)

    Member
    18,151
    10,463
    May 6, 2009
    United States
    The Danger Zone
    Yes, because the voting majority is often moronic and can't make true decisions, just whatever is fed to them by paid ads.

    I say good, Prop 8 was retarded, hopefully this will be struck down and I can finally stop worrying about news again.
     
  6. snico1995

    snico1995 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    290
    0
    Mar 13, 2010
    United States
    i think this is good, i do think that not allowing same sex marriage does infringe on peoples rights, i really dont understand the opposition, it seems like people are extremely bothered by something that in no way affects them
     
  7. dinofan01

    dinofan01 Misses the old days...

    Member
    2,842
    1
    Jul 4, 2008
    United States
    Yes when the vote is for something unconstitutional.

    Anyone who bitches about this is dumb. This was gonna happen eventually. The older citizens in this state were the ones that voted for. Eventually those citizens would die, the law would come back, the more open younger citizens would then allow gay marriage. Why wait?
     
  8. Prophet6000

    Prophet6000 Banned

    Banned
    86
    0
    Sep 26, 2009
    United States
    Jacksonville FL
    i wonder what is gonnna happen next? people getting married to more than one person or animals? o-o who knows
     
  9. imshortandrad

    imshortandrad GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    267
    10
    May 17, 2010
    United States
    INDIANA
    I say let people marry who they want to marry. [​IMG]
     
  10. ball2012003

    ball2012003 Newbie

    yes as long as it is boy girl
     
  11. imshortandrad

    imshortandrad GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    267
    10
    May 17, 2010
    United States
    INDIANA

    No it shouldn't matter. If a guy is in love with another guy, I'm cool with that. Same with a girl being in love with another girl.
     
  12. VashTS

    VashTS Beat it, son

    Member
    3,866
    690
    Mar 14, 2009
    United States
    Upstate NY
    gay marriage is stupid and letting it be is stupid as well.

    gayness is just well gay. you cannot enjoy kissing a man/woman of the same sex. facial hair + facial hair = disgusting. its a psychological "this isn't what society is used to, TAKE THAT!" move. and also can be used along side, "Look at me I'm different" and "im not afraid of what you think!". thats gay in a nutshell.

    don't even get me started on gay women. no one likes bitches. not even bitches.
     
  13. imshortandrad

    imshortandrad GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    267
    10
    May 17, 2010
    United States
    INDIANA

    Just because you don't like kissing someone of the same sex doesn't mean other people don't.
     
  14. dinofan01

    dinofan01 Misses the old days...

    Member
    2,842
    1
    Jul 4, 2008
    United States
    i dont see this thread going well. I see too much ignorance in here. Lets see how it goes...
     
  15. Hakoda

    Hakoda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,133
    2
    Feb 2, 2008
    United States
    San Jose, CA
    I agree. I mean of course it was unconstitutional to allow this, idk what the hell they were thinking. I am against Prop. 8. Let those marry who they wish as long as it is not against their will.

    I personally have 3 very simple questions to ask someone in order to determine whether they have rights.

    1) Are you human? [​IMG]
    2) Do you live in the United States? [​IMG]
    3) Are you citizen of the Unites States? [​IMG]

    If yes is the answer to all these questions then BAM you have rights. I don't care if your straight, lesbian, gay, black, white, asian, arab, latino, african, christian, muslim, buddhist, jewish, or atheist. Its that simple.
     
  16. Crimsonclaw111

    Crimsonclaw111 GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    387
    57
    Apr 7, 2010
    United States
    [​IMG]
    You sir, are a fucking moronic dick head.
     
  17. [M]artin

    [M]artin .

    Member
    3,660
    275
    Nov 7, 2006
    United States
    Man, I've had my popcorn ready since I saw this hit the front page...

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Canonbeat234

    Canonbeat234 Redeemed Temper

    Member
    2,278
    28
    Sep 24, 2008
    Well some people are just complaining about the issue when it was already set in stone to begin with. Gay/Lesbians wants the same rights as us because this is the US where free opportunity is possible. It took time though however it did passed by law. The real question is how many other states will allow the same thing?
     
  19. Hakoda

    Hakoda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,133
    2
    Feb 2, 2008
    United States
    San Jose, CA
    That and we're all human. I doubt the founding fathers set the Constitution to heterosexual only. We're not different, we're the same. Sure, our view on life may be different but were the same species; still part of the human race. How can one human be given rights when another isn't just because they view life differently?
     
  20. imshortandrad

    imshortandrad GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    267
    10
    May 17, 2010
    United States
    INDIANA
    I completely agree with this. I hope other states will start to allow it, now that this happened.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.