• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judge Declares California's Prop 8 Unconstitutionalfederal precedent on gay marriage

linwood

Well-Known Member
I just love it when a person in power is able to point out the obvious and even correct some idiocy.

It happens so rarely.

Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage

A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

When I think of all the money the Mormon Church wasted on this legislated bigotry it brings tears to my eyes.

Mostly because I`m laughing so hard.


Edit:
Damn, messed up the title.
My copy/paste skills are weak.
 

Neo-Logic

Reality Checker
I wouldn't hold my breathe just yet. There are several big elephants in the room.

The ruling comes out of Northern District of California -- one of the clusters of Federal courts from the area that are jokingly (and accurately) referred to in the legal community as "The most overturned courts in the country".

Also, Proposition 8 is just one part of the systemic flaw that exists with California's referendum system and the ease at which our state's constitution can be amended. Direct democracy has its flaws and California is a great big horrible example of that.

I haven't read the 138 pages yet, but I will try to get through it tonight and see how well it might hold up in the higher courts.

Wouldn't get too optimistic just yet.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
My guess is, it's got a good chance of surviving the 9th Circuit on appeal, but if it makes it to the Supreme Court, Roberts and the right-wing fanatics are going to kill the overturn and reinstate it. That Bush Court is going to screw this country for decades.

Which is a damn shame, especially in this case, because this was a really sweet little piece of triumph for sanity and civil rights. I can't think of a better case of the government needing to enforce the separation between religion and state, vis-a-vis what people are annoyed by for religious reasons, and what is the just duty of the civil government to enforce and secure for the benefit of our free society, regardless of people's personal moral whims.
 

MoonWater

Warrior Bard
Premium Member
wait we still have a bush court? I thought when obama got elected he got to instate new judges to the supreme court. If he didn't then how long do we have to deal with the bush court?

Even so I actually read an article where it was mentioned that the swing vote would likely go to a guy who has always voted to protect same sex couples and their rights in other cases that have come before them. I'll see if I can find the article again.

I've been reading through the 138 pages and it seems like he's covering all the bases. I'm currently reading the parts where he's going on about how allowing same sex marriage will actually greatly benefit the economy and how the california economy and everything actually suffered loss due to same sex marriage being banned:
"Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California
and local governments."
"CCSF would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in
effect."
"Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex
couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased
availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs
to secure rights and obligations typically associated with
marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate
these costs."

I think this will have a major impact in future court proceedings as it's sowing that there is more going here as a result of discrimination than a few unhappy couples. It's having an actual, physical, measurable impact on the economy and on overall mental health.

The judge also focuses a great deal on how prop. 8 is discriminatory, how children of same sex couples do just as well as opposite sex couples, how the only real motivation behind prop. 8 is "personal morals"(A.K.A religious bigotry), how allowing same sex marriage will in no way ever force religious individuals or organizations to either recognize or wed same sex couples, how not allowing same sex marriage creates a stigma that gays and lesbians are second class citizens and that their unions are of little to no value, domestic partnerships do nothing to alleviate this stigma and in a way even make it worse, how banning same sex marriage hurts gays and lesbians and makes life a lot harder for their children, that the passing of prop. 8 depended on fear mongering and false stereotyping, that marriage is a "civil union", that allowing same sex couples to marry will in no way negatively impact opposite sex couples and in the end allowing same sex marriage will only benefit the marriage institution and the state overall.

In a sense judge walker has taken pretty much every argument the religious right has come up with against same sex marriage and blown it out of the water. It seems to me like he's covered all the bases and those who continue to fight against same sex marriage are going to have a hard time making a case or coming up with an argument that walker hasn't already contradicted. I don't know how these articles that the judges put out when making a ruling hold up in appeals courts or anything. At the very least I highly doubt we'll be seeing a federal ban on same sex marriage resulting from any federal court proceedings on this matter.

quick question though: if the federal supreme court were to uphold judge walker's ruling, would that have any legal impact on gay marriage elsewhere in the united states and if so what impact would it have?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
wait we still have a bush court? I thought when obama got elected he got to instate new judges to the supreme court. If he didn't then how long do we have to deal with the bush court?

A sitting president may nominate any person of their choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court (or, in much rarer circumstances, may ask the Congress to alter the number of seats upon the Court, and if they legislate such an alteration, then he may nominate whom he pleases to fill the resultant vacancies).

Once the nominee has been confirmed into their position by the Senate (as the Constitution mandates that such nominations meet with the approval of the Senate), they occupy their seat upon the Court for life, or until they resign, or unless they are impeached by the Congress for crimes (this has, I believe, only happened once in American history). Otherwise, Supreme Court justices have no term limits.

if the federal supreme court were to uphold judge walker's ruling, would that have any legal impact on gay marriage elsewhere in the united states and if so what impact would it have?

Well, I am no jurist-- only a fancier of the law-- so I cannot say precisely what all the ramifications would be. But if I understand correctly, the issues at hand would be twofold: Prop 8 was an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. Judge Walker has determined that the amendment must be struck down, because it represents principles in violation of the Federal Constitution. However, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed by the 104th Congress denies the right of marriage to same sex couples at the Federal level. Unless the Court could be convinced that as it stands, there is some implicit right in the Federal government for citizens to marry, and that such a right may not be limited by the Congress to only some citizens (heterosexuals), the Court would likely reverse Judge Walker, and reinstate Prop 8, as it cannot be argued that an amendment in harmony with Federal legislation can be unconstitutional, unless the Federal legislation is also unconstitutional.

If the Court were to decide to do so, they could strike down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act also, thus completely validating the overturn of Prop 8, and also in the process opening the door for invalidating every other State's laws against same-sex marriage. Such legislation might be struck down all across the nation.

Such a decision might not come from any particular support of gay marriage, but from an argument that the Congress has no authority to legislate marriage at the Federal level. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives the Congress authority to make laws about marriage, and authorities not given to Congress are deemed to be the province of the State governments. One might argue that the DOMA is an infringement by the Congress on the civil jurisdictions of the governments of the several States. If the Court is even slightly likely to support the overturn of Prop 8, it will probably be for this reason.

Ironically, while that might invalidate the DOMA and strike down Prop 8, it could also lead to opening doors for suggesting that many other Federal laws are unconstitutional because of infringement upon "States rights." Many civil rights, labor rights, and social protection laws could become intensely vulnerable to overturn. And it would be a shocking precedent. While the immediate goals of affirming the overturn of Prop 8 and perhaps the overturn of the DOMA also are laudable and positive, the Federal government has strongly asserted its dominance over the State governments for a long time, and "States rights" arguments have a long history of abuse. "States rights" arguments precipitated the Civil War, and were used to justify Jim Crow laws, and various other forms of oppression.

What it would mean in the long run for the US in its entirety if the Supreme Court affirms the overturn of Prop 8 is unclear.
 

MoonWater

Warrior Bard
Premium Member
A sitting president may nominate any person of their choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court (or, in much rarer circumstances, may ask the Congress to alter the number of seats upon the Court, and if they legislate such an alteration, then he may nominate whom he pleases to fill the resultant vacancies).

Once the nominee has been confirmed into their position by the Senate (as the Constitution mandates that such nominations meet with the approval of the Senate), they occupy their seat upon the Court for life, or until they resign, or unless they are impeached by the Congress for crimes (this has, I believe, only happened once in American history). Otherwise, Supreme Court justices have no term limits.



Well, I am no jurist-- only a fancier of the law-- so I cannot say precisely what all the ramifications would be. But if I understand correctly, the issues at hand would be twofold: Prop 8 was an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. Judge Walker has determined that the amendment must be struck down, because it represents principles in violation of the Federal Constitution. However, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed by the 104th Congress denies the right of marriage to same sex couples at the Federal level. Unless the Court could be convinced that as it stands, there is some implicit right in the Federal government for citizens to marry, and that such a right may not be limited by the Congress to only some citizens (heterosexuals), the Court would likely reverse Judge Walker, and reinstate Prop 8, as it cannot be argued that an amendment in harmony with Federal legislation can be unconstitutional, unless the Federal legislation is also unconstitutional.

If the Court were to decide to do so, they could strike down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act also, thus completely validating the overturn of Prop 8, and also in the process opening the door for invalidating every other State's laws against same-sex marriage. Such legislation might be struck down all across the nation.

Such a decision might not come from any particular support of gay marriage, but from an argument that the Congress has no authority to legislate marriage at the Federal level. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives the Congress authority to make laws about marriage, and authorities not given to Congress are deemed to be the province of the State governments. One might argue that the DOMA is an infringement by the Congress on the civil jurisdictions of the governments of the several States. If the Court is even slightly likely to support the overturn of Prop 8, it will probably be for this reason.

Ironically, while that might invalidate the DOMA and strike down Prop 8, it could also lead to opening doors for suggesting that many other Federal laws are unconstitutional because of infringement upon "States rights." Many civil rights, labor rights, and social protection laws could become intensely vulnerable to overturn. And it would be a shocking precedent. While the immediate goals of affirming the overturn of Prop 8 and perhaps the overturn of the DOMA also are laudable and positive, the Federal government has strongly asserted its dominance over the State governments for a long time, and "States rights" arguments have a long history of abuse. "States rights" arguments precipitated the Civil War, and were used to justify Jim Crow laws, and various other forms of oppression.

What it would mean in the long run for the US in its entirety if the Supreme Court affirms the overturn of Prop 8 is unclear.

k, thanks.
 
Top