Proposition 8 overturned

[Strelok]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_670739.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08...ands_vict.html
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11859101

A federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

[Tiberios]

Good.

[motiv-8]

Doesn't mean anything yet. Case will go to an appelate court and perhaps from there to the USSC. Then will be the potentially momentous decision.

[Border Patrol]

On a personal note, I'm all for gay marriage, but honestly, when are we going to be able to make laws of our ing own accord? When we secede from the union? Is the federal government just trying to throw weight around and prove California is subservient or what?

[tarvu]

On a personal note, I'm all for gay marriage, but honestly, when are we going to be able to make laws of our ing own accord? When we secede from the union? Is the federal government just trying to throw weight around and prove California is subservient or what?

I'm sure a lot of 1950's and 1960's southern politicians would absolutely agree with you.



(haha probably a bad picture)

[The spartan]

On a personal note, I'm all for gay marriage, but honestly, when are we going to be able to make laws of our ing own accord? When we secede from the union? Is the federal government just trying to throw weight around and prove California is subservient or what?

Well, generally, civil rights are not up for a referendum, as that just seems counterproductive.

[Strelok]

I wonder if there are going to be protestors outside the courthouse. I realize it's just the beginnings of a case that might potentially lead to the abolishment of what Prop 8 put into effect, but...

[MathiasOfAthens]

Is this new.

[Strelok]

Is this new.

Like under an hour ago new.

[Border Patrol]

Look, I want Californians to remove the legality of marriage altogether. It's a religious institution and as such any legal union should be titled a civil union. Everyone is happy.
This shouldn't be up to the federal government, which also prosecutes Californians for marijuana related charges. For what purpose?

[The spartan]

Look, I want Californians to remove the legality of marriage altogether. It's a religious institution and as such any legal union should be titled a civil union. Everyone is happy.
This shouldn't be up to the federal government, which also prosecutes Californians for marijuana related charges. For what purpose?

That would be cool, but that is never going to happen.

[Alkarin]

Look, I want Californians to remove the legality of marriage altogether. It's a religious institution and as such any legal union should be titled a civil union. Everyone is happy.
This shouldn't be up to the federal government, which also prosecutes Californians for marijuana related charges. For what purpose?

this post, i agree with it. +rep

[PoleCat]

exactly. because the US constitution does not explicitly give the Federal govt jurisdiction over marriage, the right to regulate marriage is, by default, given solely to the states to decide....snip

The US Constitution does not define marriage in any way whatsoever. Neither as a man-woman relationship or as any relationship at all - the document doesn't cover marriage.

What it does cover is the pecking order of our laws. Federal Law trumps State Law on any power enumerated by the Constitution. As Marriage is not defined then States do get to decide - you're correct there. But there is a snag called the Supremacy Clause.

Also you must remember that the Constitution gives the power of Judicial Jurisdiction solely to Congress - that is one of their enumerated powers. In this case the Judicial branch has the jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of our laws, both State and Federal as delegated by Congress.

then why the hell do we have elections in the first place??? (snipped out the ridiculous part of your argument to save space).

please do bear in mind that you aren't talking about some abstract unimportant thing, you are talking about literally ripping to shreds core American values. this is the point where I would start recommending folks to move to a neighboring country .

PS: btw I am not religious. I wasn't even baptized. I just have common sense and respect traditions.

Here's where "Tradition" meets reality. The judge in this case has cited the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Here it is so that you can read up on it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In this case the following lines are the most important:

• No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In this case the judge ruled that as Citizens of the US they are afforded the full protection of the law and any and all rights reserved for Citizens. As I understand it Marriage has been ruled as a right of Citizenship in other precedent cases. As such he deemed that it was unconstitutional to deny those rights to homosexuals based solely on their sexual orientation as the Constitution doesn't mention sexual orientation as a defining factor for citizenship in any way.

Prop 8 was a law designed to deny the rights of marriage to homosexuals and therefore was unconstitutional - you'll have to agree unless you have a problem following logic.

Take a Civics class - you need a refresher. They still teach those in public high schools these days, right?

[Fight!]

yes!

[MaryPoppinCaps]

If only I still lived in California.

[Border Patrol]

Right, so democracy only when it serves your needs. Is that it?

[The spartan]

Right, so democracy only when it serves your needs. Is that it?

No, I am saying you will probably not be able to remove the institution of marriage for a very long time. Too many people support it.

[Enemy of the State]

Good for California.

Is there a chance of the supreme court deciding gays have a constitutional right to marry?

Look, I want Californians to remove the legality of marriage altogether. It's a religious institution and as such any legal union should be titled a civil union. Everyone is happy.
This shouldn't be up to the federal government, which also prosecutes Californians for marijuana related charges. For what purpose?

I totally agree, I want government out of marriages altogether, but this is an improvement over the status quo.

[danzig]

Good for California.

Is there a chance of the supreme court deciding gays have a constitutional right to marry?

You can bet your life on it and for those who support the idea that people should be able to marry regardless of gender I wouldnt like the odds of it...hell you probably open the case 4 votes down automatically.

[motiv-8]

Right, so democracy only when it serves your needs. Is that it?

Well, should democracy be allowed to impede constitutional protections and rights? That's really the crux of this particular matter from a legal standpoint.