yay America did something good

[ninwa]

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco decided Wednesday that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure in California that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs' relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States."

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

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2 1/2-week trial in January.

Walker's historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3 per cent margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

[Noblesse]

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

Wow, nice one America.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/#content
No -- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don't care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 51%

Derp.

[ninwa]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/mexico-court-rejects-gay-marriage-challenge/story-e6frfku0-1225902083207

MEXICO'S Supreme Court has ruled Mexico City's gay marriage law constitutional, defeating a challenge to the measure by the Federal Government.

[kendraaaaa]

*sigh*

Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?

[starbuckscoffee]

*sigh*

Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?

um is it only me but are you a little shit? If u don't care then shut up, others do!!!!! C this is wot shits me. These are people lives ur talking about. And people just don't care because it doesn't affect them.

[kendraaaaa]

*sigh*

Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?

um is it only me but are you a little shit? If u don't care then shut up, others do!!!!! C this is wot shits me. These are people lives ur talking about. And people just don't care because it doesn't affect them.

Don't call me a little shit you ignorant child.

An apathetic opinion is still an opinion, and since I have the right to my own opinion don't tell me to shut up.

[ninwa]

*sigh*

Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?

Out of interest, why not?

[kendraaaaa]

*sigh*

Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?

Out of interest, why not?

I have nothing against the notion, it's just that I've never really had any contact with homosexual people and so I've never really reflected on the issue. To be honest if someone asked me to either vote yes or no on legalizing it I'd probably vote yes but it wouldn't be a very passionate yes.

[ninwa]

Ah okay, fair enough

[fady_22]

I'm going to be controversial here: why do homosexuals need marriage? I see marriage as more of a religious rite, and since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality), why is it necessary? And it's not as if married couples have any significant rights that de facto couples don't.

I'm curious to see people's opinions.

[m@tty]

I agree with you.

[Cthulhu]

since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality),

That's a pretty large generalisation to make. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean a majority of homosexuals are non-religious.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? At the moment all they've got is a civil union/domestic partnership which does not grant them the same rights as a marriage licence does.

see http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for a comparison of the two.

You see marriage as a religious rite does this mean that you think atheists don't have the need to get married?

[fady_22]

since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality),

That's a pretty large generalisation to make. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean a majority of homosexuals are non-religious.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? At the moment all they've got is a civil union/domestic partnership which does not grant them the same rights as a marriage licence does.

see http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for a comparison of the two.

You see marriage as a religious rite does this mean that you think atheists don't have the need to get married?

And I agree that that was a wrong generalisation to make. What I meant was, homosexuals would not get married because their religion frowns upon a sexual relationship before marriage. The fact that they are homosexuals would probably precede that.

Why not grant those rights (which I don't see are significant) to all couples, both de facto and married? It would be better than changing an age old tradition. For centuries, a marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why change that now? And if it is changed, what else will change along with it? Where is the line drawn?

And besides, it's not as if marriage means anything anymore. With the amount of divorces nowadays, I don't see how marriage can be seen as an act of committing oneself to a relationship.

I don't see that atheists have as much of a need as the religious in regards to marriage. Can you enlighten me as to the reasons why an atheist like yourself would want to get married?

[Cthulhu]

Yeah there is too much divorce these days. I don't see much point in marriage at all anymore the whole idea of it was that you loved someone and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them and share everything but there is no reason you can't do that without getting married.

These days the religious idea of marriage has pretty much gone down the toilet in secular society.

As for atheists getting married: I'd like to think that they're marrying for love rather then a religious or legal aspect.
Don't quote me on this because I can't find the source but I've read that divorce rates in religious couples is higher than in atheist couples.

As for gay marriage: It's the 21st century and everyone should have the right to be happy and if its marriage that makes them happy  and being recognised as a married couple than so be it.

Could you imagine the outrage of civil unions and de facto relationships had the same legal rights as married couples? The religious fundies that hate everyone would go nuts.

[lynt.br]

I don't see that atheists have as much of a need as the religious in regards to marriage. Can you enlighten me as to the reasons why an atheist like yourself would want to get married?

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but perhaps such people get married because they love each other...?