« | »

Proposition 8 Judge Overrules CA Voters

From a walking on air San Francisco Chronicle:

Prop. 8 judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban

Joe Garofoli, John Wildermuth, Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writers
Thursday, August 5, 2010

(08-04) SAN FRANCISCO — When a judge struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, he handed gay rights advocates a historic and invigorating victory, but also a temporary one in a long fight that may be heading toward a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the will of the people as expressed by the votes be damned. We are now a nation ruled by black robed clerics.

Even as Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s toppling of Proposition 8 set off hours of celebration in some quarters – with many gays and lesbians seeing the ruling as not just a validation of marriage rights, but of their lives in general – opponents planned to seek a reversal at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals…

Remember when homosexuals used to claim that they ‘just want to be left alone’?

One of those who hailed the decision was Kristin Perry of Berkeley, whose desire to marry her partner of 10 years, Sandy Stier, prompted the couple to sue over Prop. 8, along with two men from Burbank. The initiative was approved by 52 percent of voters in November 2008, overturning a state Supreme Court ruling six months earlier that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians…

At a news conference just after Walker’s 136-page decision was released, Perry said, "Today, every American should be proud.”

"Proud" to know that their voice is now official meaningless.

Walker attached a stay order to his ruling, freezing it for at least a few days until a separate hearing can be held on whether to allow same-sex marriages while the case is appealed

The appeal to the Ninth Circuit could be decided within months – or the process could take more than a year.

The article then goes on for several paragraphs to pretend that this judge might not allow homosexual ‘marriages’ while the appeal process proceeds. Which, of course, is preposterous — given the rest of his ruling.

A Field Poll last month found that a majority of California’s registered voters approve of allowing same-sex marriage, which boosts the chances of a 2012 initiative…

And after all, what is more important? A poll or an actual vote? Obviously, polls are more important – that is, if they say what the media and the rest of the left want.

The issue is a tricky one for politicians, including President Obama, who has said he opposes same-sex marriage but also opposes Prop. 8

It’s almost as if Mr. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.

Still, who can doubt that he will call upon Mr. Holder to have his (Social) Justice Department sue California. Since we cannot have a patchwork of different marriage laws across the country.

By the way, the San Francisco Chronicle neglects to mention the supposed reason the judge struck down the ban. Mr. Walker claimed that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional “under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.”

And never mind that this is preposterous, given that we all have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

And speaking of preposterous, also note that no where in this 1,406 word article does the San Francisco Chronicle deign to mention that Judge Walker is himself of the homosexual persuasion. Indeed, Mr. Walker is one of only two openly homosexual federal judges.

Apparently that is not a detail that its readers needs to know.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, August 5th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “Proposition 8 Judge Overrules CA Voters”

  1. BillK says:

    There was never any doubt.

    From Fox News:

    Federal Judge Overturns California’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

    A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.

    The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.

    Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

    Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

    Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

    California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

    “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,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

    The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

    “Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

    Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it. …

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

    Remember when a judge might have oh, recused himself from a case due to a conflict of interest?

    Silly me…

    • JohnMG says:

      …….“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license………”

      Fit this barebacking fudgepacker out with one of those special sport coats. You know, the ones with the wrap-around sleeves.

      I would challenge anyone with a fundamental grasp of the English language and an 8th grade vocabulary to validate this statement. Yet he sits on the bench for the remainder of his life and issues such rulings. In a just world, this brain-dead son-of-a-bitch would die of AIDS. Instead, he gets to go on contaminating the world both physically and intellectually.

      Still, I guess if you’re of such a persuasion that you believe the word “is” has multiple meanings, it somehow makes sense.

    • fallingpianos says:

      Let’s try this on for size:

      “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out incestuous brothers and sisters for denial of a marriage license.”

      Or:

      “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out zoophiles for denial of a marriage license.”

      Or:

      “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out pedophiles and children for denial of a marriage license.”

      Or:

      “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out those already married for denial of an additional marriage license.”

      The legal profession sure churns out towering intellects, doesn’t it? I’m not a big fan of government intrusion into everyday life, but I would be amenable to a regulation that states the first book any law student studies is a dictionary.

    • bullforever says:

      So, according to Wikipedia (not reliable, I know…) Prop 8 was an actual Constitutional Amendment to the California State Constitution. It was passed by voters in accordance with that very same Constitution.

      This is an ugly precedent here folks…finding the Constitution Unconstitutional in a court of law? Whats next? Will we now see SCOTUS declare the bill of rights to be Unconstitutional? How the hell did we get here?

    • BillK says:

      I keep hearing various conservatives mention this is a dangerous precedent, but have you forgotten 1996’s Amendment 2 in Colorado?

      That was an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that simply would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action from recognizing homosexual citizens as a Protected class.

      That’s it.

      It was overturned first by the Colorado Supreme Court, and then SCOTUS.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

      Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

      To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

      and that it:

      is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

      So state courts and SCOTUS have overturned state constitutional amendments before.

      It can’t be a precedent or slippery slope when it happened before, in 1996.

  2. swee says:

    I’ve been thinking that if indeed this case makes it to the Supreme Court…it would be a good prelude to eventually overturning Roe vs. Wade. Here’s why: Proposition 8 is all about a traditional marriage of a man and a woman, which is primarily for procreation, which is in turn how we populate the U.S.

    If marriage isn’t about procreation, we are going to have a heck of a problem in populating the U.S. (in fact, we already do, but it’s obscured by presence of illegal alien Mexicans who are doing most of the procreating.) We can’t depend on homosexuals to populate our country because it’s physically impossible. Even adoption, which some homosexual couples do, isn’t the answer here. Procreation by traditional methods (no in-vitro, etc.) still remains the cheapest, fastest way to populate an area.

    If the S.C. rules in favor of the ban, the U.S. has hopes to save unborn babies and our country. If not, we’ve got a long way to go.

  3. swee says:

    Although I have to say sharia law (which seems to be gaining ground in the U.S.) and the growing trend of gay marriage don’t go together at all. If both continue to become popular, we’ll have the gays duking it out with robed Muslims in our streets in 20 years. The group who draws the most blood wins. Wonder who that will be?

  4. proreason says:

    I can understand why some queers are angry.

    What I can’t understand is why the country lets a few thousand vein-popping queer activists set public policy.

    Why not just let aggreived child molestors run the country as they see fit? When you get right down to it, child molestors have been dealt an even worse hand than common perverts. Nobody nowadays tries to prevent queers from flaunting their depravities. But child molestation is actually frowned upon, at least for the moment. Surely these victims should be given unchecked power and unlimited compensation to compensate them for their sick urges.

    And we haven’t even discussed mass murderers yet.

  5. Georgfelis says:

    What I can’t understand is how a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional, because it contradicts/clashes with a portion of the original constitution. If that were true, we never could have repealed Prohibition, or established an Income Tax, or for that matter replaced the original Articles of Confederation.

  6. NoNeoCommies says:

    The Sacramento Bee newspaper’s article about this story focuses on the poor people that can’t instantly get married after “winning”.
    This illustrates the leftist thinking to a tee.
    We want what we want and we want it right now!!!
    Don’t stand in our way!
    Our Version of Democracy is that 20% of the people get to tell the rest to go to “heck”.

    We can always amend the state constitution to allow overruling judicial appointments by popular vote, or just recalling judges by special election.
    That isn’t the way a good democracy works, but democracy seems to be failing, so maybe it is time to clean house.

  7. nuthingbettertodo says:

    Among his arguments…
    “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote.

    So in other words, a precedent has been set for having multiple spouses, marrying siblings, marrying children (sharia law coming to the U.S.?), the family dog etc….

  8. bronzeprofessor says:

    Can someone please make this stop? The whole debate makes me want to jump off a tall building. Who gives a cr*p? Really.

    • proreason says:

      Hey, bp. Hope things are going well for you.

      You know, the reason people care about it is that it is a classic example of a fringe minority willing to go to any extreme to impose their will on the majority. It’s not good enough that they be tolerated. They want to shove thier view down the throats of people who sincerely believe what they do is morally wrong, yet are willing to accept their depravity if the perverst are simply willing to do it without a scene. And they are abetted by a Ruling Class that is using the fringe minority as a political tool to impose its will on the country and turn us into a dictatorship. From the perspective of the Ruling Class, it is just another way to balkanize the country. Balkanize enough, and there will be no organizations strong enough to resist the conquest.

      Other than having perverted behaviour imposed on society, and dealing with arrogant idiots trying to shove their will down my throat and turn me and my family into serfs,….i’m ok with it.

  9. U NO HOO says:

    Obama is evil.

    And is Valerie Jarrett really Obama’s girlfriend?

  10. Reality Bytes says:

    This whole gay thing is highly over rated. Just remember, it’s a short hop over but a long walk back.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »