Proposition 8 In California Overturned: Do You Agree?

[Jack-Hammer]

Earlier this afternoon, it was announced on CNN that a federal judge in California had overturned Proposition 8. For those unaware of what Prop 8 might be, it is a proposition that appeared on the ballot during the 2008 election in California that would give voters the right to decide if gay marriage should be legal in the state of California. Of those that voted on the issue, 52% voted for it while 48% voted agains it.

It's stirred up a lot of controversy and those that are in support of legalizing gay marriage say that Proposition 8 is an attack against equality. The law was immediately challenged and a Federal Judge today declared that Prop 8 does violate constitutional statutes regarding equality. There's little doubt that this judge's decision will be appealed by proponents of Prop 8 and will head to the Court of Appeals, 9th District. If the Court of Appeals upholds this judge's verdict, then the next step would be to the California Supreme Court and then onto the United States Supreme Court.

Some legal analysts are saying that this does pretty much indicate that gay marriage will be legalized in California in the long run. The reason for this is that the attorneys challenging the law have challenged it based on charges of equality as stated within the U.S. Constitution and that the Supreme Court has upheld rulings on similar cases in the past that appear as violations of equality as put down in the Constitution.

Of course, there's probably still a long way to do and I certainly don't have all the details about this as the decision was reached only a few hours ago. So what do you think? Is this an example of voters rights being overturned or was Proposition 8 a violation of Constitutionally protected rights in the first place?

 

[klunderbunker]

My issue here is simple: the people originally voted against it. The idea of a democracy is to let the voices of the people be heard. They were heard here but the ruling was overturned anyway. The content of the bill doesn't matter. It's that the people voted one way but it's just been decided that that's not what we're going to do so the minority gets their choice. That's never made sense to me at all and doesn't here.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well, that shouldnt mean SHIT in a cases of human rights, man.

If we put it to a vote in fucking Alabama that we should bring back Slavery, and it passed, it would be ok to do that? If we voted on child molestation to be legal in Mighigan and it passed, that would be ok? Like fuck it would.

I bet if they voted on wether or not women should be stoned to death for the mere ACCUSATION of adultery in Afgahnistan, im sure it would overwelmingly pass...So then, if should be allowed to happen?

No. That shit should be tossed out the fucking window when it comes to cases of basic human rights, and discrimination.

 

[Hawkeye]

I always thought it was wrong to deny anyone they're basic human rights,including the right to be married.In a church.By a minister.and share all the legal rights and responsibilities of a married couple.Let's not call them civil unions and then not give them the same things married people get. That's a total cop out and I feel it's worse than denying them the right completely.I for one am glad that piece of right wing bigotry was overturned.

I still want one of those sweet "Legalize Gay" tshirts though...

 

[Eck]

I'm not a huge supporter of gay marrige. But it is theyre way of life nobody should take that away. In the Constitution it even says and i qoute: "All men are created equal." Now if u ask me prop 8 took that away. I also agree with NorCal. if its not right and people vote for it, it still doesnt make it correct. People who don't support it are complet homophobics. They're probley worried that gay marrige will influence they're children into becoming homo sexuals.

 

[Razor]

Norcal has it. By a mile.

Who gives a shit if the people voted for it? It's unconstitutional, as the judge said. You can't violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution and expect it to stand because "the people voted for it."

It's the same with Arizona. People in Arizona overwhelmingly support the proposed law that mandates Arizona police officers to inquire about immigration status on any stop. Traffic stop, drug bust, public intoxication. It didn't matter.

That was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause in the Constitution that gave the Federal government supreme and complete control of immigration laws and the enforcement of those laws.

Same thing here. If you left it up to a vote in Arkansas, sodomy would be outlawed tomorrow. But that law, if it were to be passed, is completely unconstitutional. Who are we to say that oral and anal sex are illegal? According to the Constitution, we're not anyone.

Sorry California. Sorry Catholic and Mormon Church. Sorry Concerned Americans for Family Values. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Appeal it to the Supreme Court. The ruling will stand.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

My issue here is simple: the people originally voted against it. The idea of a democracy is to let the voices of the people be heard. They were heard here but the ruling was overturned anyway. The content of the bill doesn't matter. It's that the people voted one way but it's just been decided that that's not what we're going to do so the minority gets their choice. That's never made sense to me at all and doesn't here.

I gotta go with Norcal on this one, bruddah. A majority of the people would vote the Bible as supreme law given the chance, so you can't really use that argument effectively. This shouldn't have gone to a vote in the first place. It's a law that promotes discrimination and and anti-civil liberties. There is no reason why people should vote on the lives of other people when it doesn't affect their own lives in the slightest bit.

 

[jmt225]

Completely agree with Norcal on this one.

I mean, MAYBE if the the voting was something like 90% in favor of Prop 8, then I would understand KB's point, but man... the fact of the matter is that this "proposition" should have never been up to vote for anyway. Anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY, in this country who pays their taxes and medicare deserve the benefits that come with marriage. It's complete discrimination to take those benefits away from people who pay that just because they're gay.

So, yeah... very nice to hear this get overturned. Props to the judge for having the balls to do it.

 

[Davi323]

This is most certainly going to be appealed, so to say its overturned is incorrect. It has been temporarily overturned, then issued a stay as California immediately filed an appeal. The judge that made the ruling is openly gay, the state of California will no doubt attempt to demonstrate that the judge who made the ruling was clearly being biased, as he would have something personal to gain out of it. They will argue that the judge should have recused himself, as being unable to be impartial. I am not saying that California is right to make such arguments, but that as a legal tactic, it should be obvious strategy. Only a really dumb lawyer wouldn't bring up the judge's sexual orientation as it pertains to a ruling that has clear implications involving that sexual orientation. They will argue that the judge has a clear cut personal motivation to decide the case a specific way, and therefore could not do his job properly. They will ask the Appellate court to throw out the original verdict. Whether you agree with Prop 8 or not, this is an obvious issue when it goes to the Appellate court.

Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The state of California will attempt to prove this statement incorrect...namely that the Constitution mandates an obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis. They will argue that equal protection does not apply to marriage, because marriage is not, nor ever has been a Constitutionally protected right. The judge's decision is based largely on the belief that the proposition is unconstitutional. The state will show evidence that it is not. The state will attack the judge's position that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, by pointing out that it has never been defined as such.

This battle is far from over. Regardless of which side you are on, it will be years yet before this is finally decided for good. Neither side will give up until it goes to the US Supreme Court to decide whether they want to accept the case or not. In other words, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Mustang Sally]

This is another good argument for the separation of church and state. I agree with NorCal too, since coming out against child molestation, slavery and the stoning of women doesn't (or shouldn't) have any basis in a person's religious beliefs.

On the other hand, the issue of same-sex marriage does often concern what people claim is being told to them by God.

Personally, I don't want to be governed by someone else's religious beliefs. Placing a proposition like this before the general public is a dangerous step.

 

[Барбоса]

I can see the possible problems of a vote by the people being overturned as it sets a dangerous precident that could be exploited.

However, surely the precident of the most populous state in the world's second biggest and most forthright democracy giving its people the right to 'legally' discriminate against a section of society is far, far more dangerous?

That is a bad road to go down.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Yeah, I'm with Norcal on this. Back when I was in my early 20s and I first really started hearing any noise about gay marriage, I figured that the best way to do it would be to put things on a national ballot during an election and let the country decide as a whole whether gay marriage would be legal or not. I figured that it was the democratic thing to do.

However, as I learned later on, letting voters decide via ballot would only work if there was a way to keep personal prejudice out of the voting booth and that just isn't possible. When the case of Loving vs. Virginia made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, there were 17 states in which it was still illegal for a white person and a person of color to be married. The High Court said, and I quote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The court also said that the anti-miscegenation law of Virginia was "designed to maintain White Supremacy".

Denying people the right to enter a marriage recognized under the law based on sexual orientation is little different than denying the right based on skin color. Even though the majority in California did vote for gay marriage to be illegal under the eyes of the law, the decision in and of itself violates the Constitution. Either everyone has equal rights or we don't, it's as simple as that. And if we don't, then the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. Having different standards for marriage creates two classes of people, one with rights and one without rights. That in and of itself is anathema to democracy.

Denying consenting men and women the right to be married sets a dangerous precident. Years from now, what is some mover and shaker in Washington believes that people with numerous tattoos and/or piercings should be denied the right to marry? What if another political player believes that marriage should only be permissable if a man and woman want to have children? Or maybe someone decides that a person of a certain height/weight range should be able to marry someone within another specific height/weight range? It might sound kind of far fetched, but you'd be surprised at how many people there are out there that believe in very strict guidelines for how one should be able to live their lives.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I should have probably mentioned in my first post (in response to KB's point) that in this case, the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment in this case, only because the 14th Amendment is an actual Amendment, and therefore part of the constitution, which voids the power the 10th Amendment has in this context.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Uh, when did marriage become a fundamental human right? Also, comparing a ban against same-sex marriage to slavery and child molestation is laughable, if not straight-up ignorant.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the way that this turned out, as I do with the way things have transpired in Arizona. Legislating from the bench is a political outrage, as such legislating almost always ends up granting a political minority some non-critical freedom or concession that they shouldn't even be entitled to in the first place (this is what I'd like to call the tyranny of the minority).

YES, it is unfair to deny same-sex couples the various tax benefits that are given to married, heterosexual couples. However, getting married in a place of your choosing is a privilege, not a right. I'm not against gay civil unions, or even gay marriage per se, but I am against a government mandate requiring churches to marry same-sex couples.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Uh, when did marriage become a fundamental human right?

I don't think marriage was ever called a fundamental human rights. The point is, a group of people are getting rights that another group of people don't have, via gender discrimination (a man can't marry a man, but a woman can, and vise versa).

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't agree anymore strongly. The government should have never gotten involved with a religious institution by providing benefits to married couples, if they're not prepared to extend these privileges
to all married couples that any given church decides to marry. The entire situation is a giant clusterfuck that violates the first amendment, in the sense that it respects and recognizes the establishment of a religion.

 

[LigerBomb]

Leaning more with KB n' T-Poon (teaspoon?).
Imagine if Prop 8 initially failed to pass and a judge overturned it on appeal? Everyone on the other side would be up in arms about the trampling of the "will of the people" etc., etc., etc. It has to cut both ways.
Just give them equal tax/ins. provisions and benefits call it a "civil union" (if you must call it anything at all) and be done with it.

 

[DirtyJosé]

YES, it is unfair to deny same-sex couples the various tax benefits that are given to married, heterosexual couples. However, getting married in a place of your choosing is a privilege, not a right. I'm not against gay civil unions, or even gay marriage per se, but I am against a government mandate requiring churches to marry same-sex couples.

The silly thing about this argument is that nowhere is it stated that gay marriages have to be recognized by the churches. That would be as unconstitutional as the ban on gay marriage in the first place. Keep your churches homosexual free if you'd like; that's your right. Prop 8 had nothing to do about forcing churches to marry homosexuals, but was a ban on any gay marriage of any kind. Huge, huge difference there, fella.

How does gay marriage play any role in hurting the church's right to their own beliefs if they aren't being forced to marry homosexuals? It doesn't! But saying that homosexuals can't be married by any means period is denying rights to a group of people based on their gender (which is illegal and unconstitutional, as the court found it) and on their sexual preference, and in that regard I agree with the overturning of Prop 8.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The silly thing about this argument is that nowhere is it stated that gay marriages have to be recognized by the churches. That would be as unconstitutional as the ban on gay marriage in the first place. Keep your churches homosexual free if you'd like; that's your right. Prop 8 had nothing to do about forcing churches to marry homosexuals, but was a ban on any gay marriage of any kind. Huge, huge difference there, fella.

How does gay marriage play any role in hurting the church's right to their own beliefs if they aren't being forced to marry homosexuals? It doesn't! But saying that homosexuals can't be married by any means period is denying rights to a group of people based on their gender (which is illegal and unconstitutional, as the court found it) and on their sexual preference, and in that regard I agree with the overturning of Prop 8.

And the silly thing about this post is you obviously have no clue about the legal implications for churches should same-sex marriages be recognized. Besides solemnizing marriages, churches also provide various social services through auxiliary organizations, the most cited example being adoption services. Given the indirect government funding churches get through tax-exemption status, what's to say that this status can't be yanked the first time that they decide to deny a same-sex couple services based on their religious beliefs (a freedom clearly protected under the First Amendment)?

If you want to grandfather churches into a new proposition that grants them immunity from any discrimination lawsuits that might arise from it, then that would be fine by me. However, until same-sex marriage proponents have a clear idea on how they plan to create new rights instead of taking away existing ones, we're going to have to agree to disagree on how this would all play out.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

...what's to say that this status can't be yanked the first time that they decide to deny a same-sex couple services based on their religious beliefs (a freedom clearly protected under the First Amendment)?

So why not allow the individual churches to turn down certain marriages they would rather not be involved in? I'm sure there are plenty of churches that are willing to marry and recognize same sex marriages. There would be no reason to force churches to recognize same sex couples if there are others that would willingly allow it.

Sure, it'll present a problem for those who are comparing this to the civil rights movement of the 60s, but what else is there to say? The churches are protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[DirtyJosé]

And the silly thing about this post is you obviously have no clue about the legal implications for churches should same-sex marriages be recognized. Besides solemnizing marriages, churches also provide various social services through auxiliary organizations, the most cited example being adoption services. Given the indirect government funding churches get through tax-exemption status, what's to say that this status can't be yanked the first time that they decide to deny a same-sex couple services based on their religious beliefs (a freedom clearly protected under the First Amendment)?

A service provided by the church, such as marriage services or adoption, should still be left free to their own devices, more or less. I doubt that any future rulings on the matter will mention anything about forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, so there isn't a precedent being set with the overturning that churches have to default to constitutional law. What's at the matter here is a legal recognition of the marriage, not a religious one.

If you want to grandfather churches into a new proposition that grants them immunity from any discrimination lawsuits that might arise from it, then that would be fine by me. However, until same-sex marriage proponents have a clear idea on how they plan to create new rights instead of taking away existing ones, we're going to have to agree to disagree on how this would all play out.

Again, I think the church is entitled to their rights as to what services they chose to provide, who is eligible for them and by what standards. I don't think this ruling changes any of that, in fact wasn't it mentioned that they were allowed to refuse service? Churches aren't the only resource for marriage, or adoption. The churches should have the freedom to their own beliefs, but those beliefs should not overlap into law. I don't think anyone is losing any rights here, only ensuring that they are available to all as they should be.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The fact people are still pathetic enough to believe homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry astounds me. People find different groups to discriminate against all the time, until those people fight back/people realise they were wrong, and they pick on a new group of people. It started with black people, then women, now it's homosexuals? What good ever comes of this sort of discrimination? None - people need to look at history a little more.

I know gay people more in love than straight people - who have a better chance of making marriage work. The ****ty teenager with 3 kids can marry a guy she just met, and get divorced a year later, but 2 men/women in love can't?

I generally believe that what the people want should stand - but not when you're voting to discriminate. As NorCal pointed out, there are many cases where people could/would vote for something we know to be wrong - it shouldn't be allowed just because people are ridiculously stupid, or know no other way.

I don't think homosexuals should fight to marry in the Churches that won't allow it, either. Why would you WANT to be married by such an intolerant, discriminatory place?

 

[Xemmy]

My issue here is simple: the people originally voted against it. The idea of a democracy is to let the voices of the people be heard. They were heard here but the ruling was overturned anyway. The content of the bill doesn't matter. It's that the people voted one way but it's just been decided that that's not what we're going to do so the minority gets their choice. That's never made sense to me at all and doesn't here.

The constitution of this entire country stands over what the people in one state have to say. When the entire country decides to make an amendment version of prop 8, then you can complain. Fuck the majority in California. If they're indecent enough to take the rights away from gays, I see nothing wrong with their right to vote being shat on a bit.

 

[Davi323]

Gay marriages, assuming that this proposition's final status is defeat, cannot be forced to be performed in any church that believes it is wrong. Churches are religious institutions, not government institutions, and already reserve the right to deny a wedding ceremony from being performed there. Getting married in a church is not a right. (hell, getting married at all is not a right) but a privilege...granted by the church and the pastor. Churches are not the only place to get married. Many get married by a Justice of the Peace, in a civil ceremony. Should the federal government dictate to churches that they must perform weddings of gay couples, directly going against that churches belief, would that not be a clear violation of the liberal mantra of separation of church and state?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Gay marriages, assuming that this proposition's final status is defeat, cannot be forced to be performed in any church that believes it is wrong. Churches are religious institutions, not government institutions, and already reserve the right to deny a wedding ceremony from being performed there. Getting married in a church is not a right. (hell, getting married at all is not a right) but a privilege...granted by the church and the pastor. Churches are not the only place to get married. Many get married by a Justice of the Peace, in a civil ceremony. Should the federal government dictate to churches that they must perform weddings of gay couples, directly going against that churches belief, would that not be a clear violation of the liberal mantra of separation of church and state?

When the government decided to offer tax benefits to married couples, the 14th Amendment made marriage a right. Once the government quietly steps out of religious affairs and gets rid of the benefits for married couples, then churches can make the choice to marry couples or not. But until then, the government has no right to offer one group of people a set of rights and bar another group from these rights.

 

[KKarvox]

Norcal has it. By a mile.

Who gives a shit if the people voted for it? It's unconstitutional, as the judge said. You can't violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution and expect it to stand because "the people voted for it."

It's the same with Arizona. People in Arizona overwhelmingly support the proposed law that mandates Arizona police officers to inquire about immigration status on any stop. Traffic stop, drug bust, public intoxication. It didn't matter.

That was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause in the Constitution that gave the Federal government supreme and complete control of immigration laws and the enforcement of those laws.

Same thing here. If you left it up to a vote in Arkansas, sodomy would be outlawed tomorrow. But that law, if it were to be passed, is completely unconstitutional. Who are we to say that oral and anal sex are illegal? According to the Constitution, we're not anyone.

Sorry California. Sorry Catholic and Mormon Church. Sorry Concerned Americans for Family Values. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Appeal it to the Supreme Court. The ruling will stand.

Actually, while i disagree with Proposition 8, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to my knowledge, as states have the right to manage their own marriage laws, which is why the Federal gov't can't make any laws regarding marriage. I have to say that while it is fucked up law, it would stand because the federal govt, supreme court included, couldn't say a thing about it. People will eventually come around on the issue of Gay Marriage, forcing people to accept it isn't going to work.

This is still a democracy, and people just can't overturn things they don't like. Putting it up to a vote again would be perfectly fine, however throwing it out because they disagree further defeats the purpose of voting. Why vote when politicians can make our decisions for us?