Proposition 8 case: Judge who struck ...

Proposition 8 case: Judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban speaks out

There are 22 comments on the The Campbell Reporter story from Feb 18, 2013, titled Proposition 8 case: Judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban speaks out. In it, The Campbell Reporter reports that:

On a May day in 2009, Vaughn Walker was going through one of his weekly routines as a federal judge, reviewing a stack of new lawsuits assigned to his San Francisco chambers, when one case caught his eye: Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Campbell Reporter.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Feb 18, 2013
Well, at least with this judge, for once we got what we bought and paid for.

:)

<s>
Tea Bag Residue Cleenup

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Feb 18, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Well, at least
STFU, you tedious, bigoted, Republican trash.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#4 Feb 19, 2013
Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal treatment for all persons under the law. The Golden Rule is not just a promise of the founding documents, it is required by the constitution. As procreation is not a legal requirement, no one has presented a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#5 Feb 19, 2013
Judge Walker was not alone nor the first to find discrimination unconsitutional.

The Ca. Supreme Court found: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)

Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)

More words from the courts: "it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Feb 19, 2013
I still don't see the SCOTUS overturning all state bans just yet, though it could be a pleasant suprise.

The most important thing is to get DOMA overturned. I'd even be willing to sacrifice California if that's the deal it takes to get a majority to over DOMA.

We can always have another vote in California in 2016 if necessary.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Feb 19, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
Hey Sheep? How do you want your bass handed to you today? You no good filthy lying paid shill!
Only a treasonous traitorous bass turd would lie about military service AND parenting!
Talk about a tinfoil hat!
ROTFLMAO!!!
At you....
Shhhhh, go back to masturbating to gay porn; just make sure you stay hydrated.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11 Feb 19, 2013
"No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientati...

Yet even if sexual orientation was a mental illness, we do not restrict marriage based on mental illness, because marriage is a fundamental civil right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12 Feb 19, 2013
from Gill v OPM:

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Feb 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientati...
Yet even if sexual orientation was a mental illness, we do not restrict marriage based on mental illness, because marriage is a fundamental civil right.
If we restricted marriage based on mental illness, then liberals and Democrats wouldn't be allowed to marry (which certainly is not a bad idea). Hey, a NEW cause !:)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#14 Feb 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I still don't see the SCOTUS overturning all state bans just yet, though it could be a pleasant suprise.
The most important thing is to get DOMA overturned. I'd even be willing to sacrifice California if that's the deal it takes to get a majority to over DOMA.
We can always have another vote in California in 2016 if necessary.
I would agree with you there, but I'm slightly more optimistic than you are.

I'd be amazed if the SCOTUS ruled this summer to just throw the door wide open to marriage equality nationwide and at all levels. But I do think that we will be taking a major step forward, whatever they decide. I don't see a backward or even a neutral step at this point.

And I totally agree about California, but I don't think that will be necessary. But I'm also pretty confident that Prop H8 could easily be voted back out in the near future if the SCOTUS doesn't see to overturn it (but I'm pretty sure they will).

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#15 Feb 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree with you there, but I'm slightly more optimistic than you are.
I'd be amazed if the SCOTUS ruled this summer to just throw the door wide open to marriage equality nationwide and at all levels. But I do think that we will be taking a major step forward, whatever they decide. I don't see a backward or even a neutral step at this point.
And I totally agree about California, but I don't think that will be necessary. But I'm also pretty confident that Prop H8 could easily be voted back out in the near future if the SCOTUS doesn't see to overturn it (but I'm pretty sure they will).
SCOTUS may well indeed "just throw the door wide open to marriage equality nationwide and at all levels", just as they did when they ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. There were certainly a large number of people who thought that SCOTUS would never do that because of the percived chaos it would bring. There were the usual "the sky will be falling" arguments at the time, as there are with any great social change.

And obviously since chaos has not reigned in the states that have thus far passed marriage equality laws, as well as D.C., a majority of the SCOTUS justices may take a bold step and do teh right thing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Feb 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS may well indeed "just throw the door wide open to marriage equality nationwide and at all levels", just as they did when they ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. There were certainly a large number of people who thought that SCOTUS would never do that because of the percived chaos it would bring. There were the usual "the sky will be falling" arguments at the time, as there are with any great social change.
And obviously since chaos has not reigned in the states that have thus far passed marriage equality laws, as well as D.C., a majority of the SCOTUS justices may take a bold step and do teh right thing.
Possible, but what is the most likely outcome?

Only those with unrealistic expectations will be disappointed by the outcome of these cases, while the rest of us may be pleasantly suprised if something more comes of it.

I'd much rather be suprised than disappointed.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#17 Feb 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Possible, but what is the most likely outcome?
Only those with unrealistic expectations will be disappointed by the outcome of these cases, while the rest of us may be pleasantly suprised if something more comes of it.
I'd much rather be suprised than disappointed.
Nobody knows. I'm sure not all of the justices even know what they'll do yet. But it COULD be as I said. Who knows ? Nobody right now. We'll just have to wait and see in late June.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Feb 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS may well indeed "just throw the door wide open to marriage equality nationwide and at all levels", just as they did when they ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. There were certainly a large number of people who thought that SCOTUS would never do that because of the percived chaos it would bring. There were the usual "the sky will be falling" arguments at the time, as there are with any great social change.
And obviously since chaos has not reigned in the states that have thus far passed marriage equality laws, as well as D.C., a majority of the SCOTUS justices may take a bold step and do teh right thing.
We do not now have a SCOTUS that even remotely resembles that of the great Warren Court.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Feb 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody knows. I'm sure not all of the justices even know what they'll do yet. But it COULD be as I said. Who knows ? Nobody right now. We'll just have to wait and see in late June.
So you're unable to make a rational assessment of the liklihood of a particular ruling? No wonder you're so often disappointed by SCOTUS rulings.

They COULD rule that Yetis can marry Humpty Dumpty, but that's not a very likely outcome.

The most likely outcome is section 3 of DOMA is overturned and Prop 8 is overturned but limited just to California.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#20 Feb 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're unable to make a rational assessment of the liklihood of a particular ruling? No wonder you're so often disappointed by SCOTUS rulings.
They COULD rule that Yetis can marry Humpty Dumpty, but that's not a very likely outcome.
The most likely outcome is section 3 of DOMA is overturned and Prop 8 is overturned but limited just to California.
Have you read anything about what the SCotUS has asked for arguments? All I keep finding are lists of people who have been filing potential amicus briefs.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#23 Feb 19, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read anything about what the SCotUS has asked for arguments? All I keep finding are lists of people who have been filing potential amicus briefs.
I thought they said right when they took the case what they wanted to be argued. I can't remember the specifics now, but I remember that the issue of standing for the hate-mongers to even BE in court was one of the issues, which is what made people think that they might be looking for overturn Prop H8, but only in California (if the hate-mongers don't have standing, the lower courts rulings stand, but the appeals court narrowed the reasoning to only apply to CA).

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24 Feb 19, 2013
The American Genocide wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the same Warren Court that buried everything about Kennedy's "assassins"
That was the "Warren Commission" not the SCotUS.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26 Feb 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought they said right when they took the case what they wanted to be argued. I can't remember the specifics now, but I remember that the issue of standing for the hate-mongers to even BE in court was one of the issues, which is what made people think that they might be looking for overturn Prop H8, but only in California (if the hate-mongers don't have standing, the lower courts rulings stand, but the appeals court narrowed the reasoning to only apply to CA).
I was wondering if there had been any updates to the formal order for written arguments, and what they include.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Feb 19, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read anything about what the SCotUS has asked for arguments? All I keep finding are lists of people who have been filing potential amicus briefs.
Obviously they want them to address the basic issue in each case. They've also asked them to address the standing issue in both cases.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Gay Marriage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) Apr 14 Larce 61,395
Ability to sue Apr 7 Steve 1
News Huckabee compares gay marriage to drug use, pol... (Apr '10) Mar '16 Trailer park pimp 39
News Prime minister says Australian vote to decide g... Jan '16 French beta cuck 1
Your name: to change or not to change? Jan '16 Frogged 1
News Alabama justice: Judges should refuse gay marri... Jan '16 NorCal Native 12
News APNewsBreak: Ohio Gay Marriage Plaintiff Backs ... Dec '15 Mitt s Dog Crate ... 1
More from around the web