Why Is It Okay For A Rat In A Black Robe To Tell 7 Million Voters To Fuk Off?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Cougar Bait
    SBR Posting Legend
    • 10-04-07
    • 18282

    #1
    Why Is It Okay For A Rat In A Black Robe To Tell 7 Million Voters To Fuk Off?
    Wasn't this passed by a 52% majority?

    I am a sexual libertarian and don't care who you spindle in the steam room, but this looks unconstitutional

    Southern California -- this just in


    « Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »
    Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated]

    August 4, 2010 | 1:48 pm

    A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure 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 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.


    [Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 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.”]


    [Updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.


    “This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, minutes after Walker’s ruling was released. “From the start, this has been about basic fairness.” Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Prop 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”


    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 2½-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% 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 Atty. Gen. 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.


    -- Maura Dolan in San Francisco
  • pavyracer
    SBR Aristocracy
    • 04-12-07
    • 82856

    #2
    Cougar the people should decide if they want to get married and not the voters. Why do the voters feel the need to tell other people how to live their lives? If two people want to get married it is their business and not mine. Let people get married and live happily and leave the politics out of this.
    Comment
    • iifold
      SBR Posting Legend
      • 04-25-10
      • 11111

      #3
      amazing how so many people cant see whats really going on here...

      if it was really up to the people, we would have bombed the middle east to nothing, closed the borders and fixed the economy...

      there is no such thing as the "United States of America" anymore...
      Comment
      • Cougar Bait
        SBR Posting Legend
        • 10-04-07
        • 18282

        #4
        Originally posted by pavyracer
        Cougar the people should decide if they want to get married and not the voters. Why do the voters feel the need to tell other people how to live their lives? If two people want to get married it is their business and not mine. Let people get married and live happily and leave the politics out of this.
        But it is a controversial issue Pavy. I PERSONALLY don't care who loves who. In fact, that isn't even the argument. The state has a responsibility and obligation not to undermine the citizens who reside there. This was already put up for vote, and the people of California voted. Are you in favor of democracy? That's what we practice here, at least, we used to.
        Comment
        • minet123
          SBR Posting Legend
          • 02-17-07
          • 10280

          #5
          The constitution exists to protects us from mob rule
          Comment
          • Mr Windy City
            Restricted User
            • 12-27-09
            • 5018

            #6
            Originally posted by iifold
            amazing how so many people cant see whats really going on here...

            if it was really up to the people, we would have bombed the middle east to nothing, closed the borders and fixed the economy...

            there is no such thing as the "United States of America" anymore...
            I agree, good post.
            Comment
            • pavyracer
              SBR Aristocracy
              • 04-12-07
              • 82856

              #7
              Originally posted by Cougar Bait
              But it is a controversial issue Pavy. I PERSONALLY don't care who loves who. In fact, that isn't even the argument. The state has a responsibility and obligation not to undermine the citizens who reside there. This was already put up for vote, and the people of California voted. Are you in favor of democracy? That's what we practice here, at least, we used to.
              I believe that marriage is not something that needs to be regulated. If two people who love each other want to get married they should be allowed so they can get married people benefits like filing for joint taxes, joint mortgages, get life insurance policies, car insurance policies, etc. The state should allow all people to enjoy equal rights by having no restrictions on who can get married. Just because 52% of the people voted to ban gay marriage it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. If 95% of the voters are married already it makes sense to vote to ban the other 5% that can get married to not dilute their rights. Now if all marriages become void before the referendum goes for a vote then you can get a true vote on how many people want no restrictions on marriage.
              Comment
              • ChileCheese
                SBR MVP
                • 11-07-09
                • 1957

                #8
                Your country was founded on the belief that Democracy should prevail above all else. Democracy in its most basic form equates to protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Its up the courts to ensure that, and that is what they have done today.
                Imagine 10 years from now, 80% of Americans vote to make any form of gambling a crime punishable by death. At that point, you will scream for everyone to **** off, and ask the courts to stand up for you.
                Comment
                • DrStale
                  SBR Hall of Famer
                  • 12-07-08
                  • 9692

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Cougar Bait

                  But it is a controversial issue Pavy. I PERSONALLY don't care who loves who. In fact, that isn't even the argument. The state has a responsibility and obligation not to undermine the citizens who reside there. This was already put up for vote, and the people of California voted. Are you in favor of democracy? That's what we practice here, at least, we used to.
                  Fair point here. My question is why it was put up for debate at all. If we let "the people" vote on civil rights we'd still have slavery.
                  Originally posted by Dark Horse
                  If with religion you mean belief system, your belief system is your religion. Again, it matters not what it is. You believe in it, you are loyal to it, would defend it, and yet have no proof of it, other than that, at one point or another, you chose to believe in it. Self-hypnosis. What if there were a snapping of fingers that broke the hypnosis?
                  Comment
                  • ronald
                    SBR MVP
                    • 10-31-05
                    • 4919

                    #10
                    Cougar, look on the bright side. If everything works out you can move to California with Brock and live happily ever after.
                    Comment
                    • MendozaLine
                      SBR MVP
                      • 01-11-10
                      • 4088

                      #11
                      very well said my friend

                      Originally posted by ChileCheese
                      Your country was founded on the belief that Democracy should prevail above all else. Democracy in its most basic form equates to protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Its up the courts to ensure that, and that is what they have done today.
                      Imagine 10 years from now, 80% of Americans vote to make any form of gambling a crime punishable by death. At that point, you will scream for everyone to **** off, and ask the courts to stand up for you.
                      Comment
                      • minet123
                        SBR Posting Legend
                        • 02-17-07
                        • 10280

                        #12
                        Marriage has nothing to do with love it is a business agreement between two people regulated by the states,this why we have pre nups and the reason you sue for divorcee
                        The state regulates it because in return for their tax break you and your partner produce new little tax payers and soldiers to protect the state and i might have been at the track that day in 7th grade health class but to produce those new tax payers you need a man and a women
                        Comment
                        • MendozaLine
                          SBR MVP
                          • 01-11-10
                          • 4088

                          #13
                          another solid post.

                          Originally posted by DrStale
                          Fair point here. My question is why it was put up for debate at all. If we let "the people" vote on civil rights we'd still have slavery.
                          Comment
                          • wtf
                            SBR Posting Legend
                            • 08-22-08
                            • 12983

                            #14
                            Originally posted by minet123
                            The constitution exists to protects us from mob rule
                            holy fuk, most retarded post EVER
                            democracy is MOB RULE

                            then why not let the judges chose the presidents, congressmen, the bill of rights, etc, fukin dork
                            Comment
                            • Cougar Bait
                              SBR Posting Legend
                              • 10-04-07
                              • 18282

                              #15
                              Pavy, that makes no sense. Then why vote on anything?

                              ChiliCheese, it's unconstitutional for 1 judge to throw out the votes of 7 million citizens. RECENTLY. Not 10 years ago.

                              Again, obviously I am not getting through here, but let me try again. I AM NOT AGAINST 2 men loving each other for the rest of their lives. But this is why we vote on things, you CAN NOT LET ONE JUDGE DECIDE FOR AN ENTIRE STATE. There are bigger issues here that people are missing. Plus 52% on this issue in the most liberal state in America is quite a statement. Don't assume you know what is good for an entire populous.
                              Comment
                              • pavyracer
                                SBR Aristocracy
                                • 04-12-07
                                • 82856

                                #16
                                Originally posted by DrStale
                                Fair point here. My question is why it was put up for debate at all. If we let "the people" vote on civil rights we'd still have slavery.
                                Exactly my thoughts.
                                Comment
                                • Cougar Bait
                                  SBR Posting Legend
                                  • 10-04-07
                                  • 18282

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by pavyracer
                                  Exactly my thoughts.
                                  Your thoughts are we shouldn't allow people to vote on things?

                                  Where the fuk do you live Paver? North Korea?
                                  Comment
                                  • pavyracer
                                    SBR Aristocracy
                                    • 04-12-07
                                    • 82856

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Cougar Bait
                                    Pavy, that makes no sense. Then why vote on anything?

                                    ChiliCheese, it's unconstitutional for 1 judge to throw out the votes of 7 million citizens. This has already been before the Supreme Court as well. RECENTLY. Not 10 years ago.

                                    Again, obviously I am not getting through here, but let me try again. I AM NOT AGAINST 2 men loving each other for the rest of their lives. But this is why we vote on things, you CAN NOT LET ONE JUDGE DECIDE FOR AN ENTIRE STATE. There are bigger issues here that people are missing. Plus 52% on this issue in the most liberal state in America is quite a statement. Don't assume you know what is good for an entire populous.
                                    Cougar,

                                    If they put on a vote tomorrow whether BP should be banned from doing business in the US do you you think the people will vote and pass it? Just because someone put an issue to vote it doesn't mean the higher courts can't challenge it. This is why our forefathers introduced the Supreme Court in the constitution which was something that ancient democracies of 2500 years ago did not have.
                                    Comment
                                    • ronjon619
                                      SBR MVP
                                      • 09-06-09
                                      • 3675

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Cougar Bait
                                      Pavy, that makes no sense. Then why vote on anything?

                                      ChiliCheese, it's unconstitutional for 1 judge to throw out the votes of 7 million citizens. This has already been before the Supreme Court as well. RECENTLY. Not 10 years ago.

                                      Again, obviously I am not getting through here, but let me try again. I AM NOT AGAINST 2 men loving each other for the rest of their lives. But this is why we vote on things, you CAN NOT LET ONE JUDGE DECIDE FOR AN ENTIRE STATE. There are bigger issues here that people are missing. Plus 52% on this issue in the most liberal state in America is quite a statement. Don't assume you know what is good for an entire populous.
                                      his ruling will be challenged. It also woks as a safety net. Say for instance all the Latinos in So Cal got together and voted in a law that states all White land owners must give their land to Latinos. It passes and is challenged and reversed.

                                      Prop 8 will be challenged all the way to the top.

                                      Also reversing a lower judges ruling is a very embarassing thing for a judge. So this judge made a HUGE call today because it will be challenged.
                                      Comment
                                      • MendozaLine
                                        SBR MVP
                                        • 01-11-10
                                        • 4088

                                        #20
                                        Cougar, there are certain issues where its okay for the Court to step in. If the people of California decided to make it illegal for anyone to practice a religion that isn't tied to Christianity, you don't think the Court should step in? I see where you are coming from pal, but the people have no right to tell someone that they cant get married because of their religious beliefs. Separation of Church and State. Something that those 52% seemed to forget.

                                        Originally posted by Cougar Bait
                                        Your thoughts are we shouldn't allow people to vote on things?

                                        Where the fuk do you live Paver? North Korea?
                                        Comment
                                        • Cougar Bait
                                          SBR Posting Legend
                                          • 10-04-07
                                          • 18282

                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by pavyracer
                                          Cougar, If they put on a vote tomorrow whether BP should be banned from doing business in the US do you you think the people will vote and pass it? Just because someone put an issue to vote it doesn't mean the higher courts can't challenge it. This is why our forefathers introduced the Supreme Court in the constitution which was something that ancient democracies of 2500 years ago did not have.
                                          Well one has nothing to do with the other Paver. Not a very good analogy. I mean, the rights of citizens and the right of a business to profit that just fuked up the entire gulf are not exactly the same thing. I see where you are going with it, but I have to disagree. I understand the right and need for the Supreme Court to rule on such matters. But for an ACLU lawyer (I know, big surprise) to have more power than 7 million voters is retarded.
                                          Comment
                                          • MendozaLine
                                            SBR MVP
                                            • 01-11-10
                                            • 4088

                                            #22
                                            now what if something like that passed? Don't you think it would be acceptable for the court to overrule something like that? Damn ******* straight it would

                                            Originally posted by ronjon619
                                            his ruling will be challenged. It also woks as a safety net. Say for instance all the Latinos in So Cal got together and voted in a law that states all White land owners must give their land to Latinos. It passes and is challenged and reversed.

                                            Prop 8 will be challenged all the way to the top.

                                            Also reversing a lower judges ruling is a very embarassing thing for a judge. So this judge made a HUGE call today because it will be challenged.
                                            Comment
                                            • Cougar Bait
                                              SBR Posting Legend
                                              • 10-04-07
                                              • 18282

                                              #23
                                              Mendoza, as I am sure you are well aware, most Latinos voted FOR Prop 8

                                              Can we stay on the subject here people?

                                              Really, the hypothetical laws you are coming up with are ridiculous.
                                              Comment
                                              • poker_dummy101
                                                Restricted User
                                                • 11-03-08
                                                • 6395

                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by Cougar Bait

                                                Again, obviously I am not getting through here, but let me try again.

                                                Your point is getting through here, its just that noone agrees with it
                                                Comment
                                                • Cougar Bait
                                                  SBR Posting Legend
                                                  • 10-04-07
                                                  • 18282

                                                  #25
                                                  Gotta go watch The Colony be back later

                                                  And, for the record, I like every poster in this thread...just some good debate here, nothing malicious from my end
                                                  Comment
                                                  • pavyracer
                                                    SBR Aristocracy
                                                    • 04-12-07
                                                    • 82856

                                                    #26
                                                    Cougar it may have not been a good analogy but you get the idea. Anyone can sponsor a bill and put it to vote and pass. I would go as far and say that if a single person wanted to pass a law he could do it with money. Imagine if Bill Gates wanted to pass a law about one of his personal beliefs. He can use his money to buy ad time on TV and campaign to have it passed as a law. But then it is the court's job whether lower or upper or superior court to decide if it's constitutional.
                                                    Comment
                                                    • dodger33
                                                      SBR MVP
                                                      • 08-14-09
                                                      • 3962

                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by Cougar Bait
                                                      But it is a controversial issue Pavy. I PERSONALLY don't care who loves who. In fact, that isn't even the argument. The state has a responsibility and obligation not to undermine the citizens who reside there. This was already put up for vote, and the people of California voted. Are you in favor of democracy? That's what we practice here, at least, we used to.
                                                      Exactly Cougar!
                                                      Comment
                                                      • poker_dummy101
                                                        Restricted User
                                                        • 11-03-08
                                                        • 6395

                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by Cougar Bait
                                                        Gotta go watch The Colony be back later
                                                        thats on tuesdays here

                                                        tivo it?
                                                        Comment
                                                        • gryfyn1
                                                          SBR MVP
                                                          • 03-30-10
                                                          • 3285

                                                          #29
                                                          What the judge is saying is that prop 8 violates the Constitution. The 14th amendment says

                                                          nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
                                                          Seeing how Marriage has more many applications under the law that denying two people to marry denied them equal protection; it is also can be inferred that deny marriage, as a legal issue, is an infringement on a persons liberty.
                                                          Comment
                                                          • wal66
                                                            SBR Hall of Famer
                                                            • 10-14-08
                                                            • 5305

                                                            #30
                                                            This is actually a very interesting debate that has developed here.

                                                            Some of thr hypothetical votes mentioned by some of the posters have merrit to them but the point Coug's is trying to make about democracy is a valid one.

                                                            The problem with being a idealist in things such as denocracy is it's just a concept. A true democracy hasn't, doesn't and can't work. A true democracy would create as mentioned mob rule.

                                                            The problem with a true democracy is that too many people are too easily swayed. They can't formulate a real opinion and find it too easy to be a part of the popular choice.

                                                            Coug's I agree with the point you are trying to make but at the same time don't you think that if we lived in a society that was a true democracy that there is a very real possibility that we would still have slavery or still have segregated schools?
                                                            Comment
                                                            • nosniboR11
                                                              SBR Posting Legend
                                                              • 09-02-08
                                                              • 10042

                                                              #31
                                                              a judge that uses his personal gay feelings to strike down what the voters say they want , in my eyes deserves to be thrown in jail for life.
                                                              Comment
                                                              • ChileCheese
                                                                SBR MVP
                                                                • 11-07-09
                                                                • 1957

                                                                #32
                                                                Originally posted by nosniboR11
                                                                a judge that uses his personal gay feelings to strike down what the voters say they want , in my eyes deserves to be thrown in jail for life.
                                                                There was a really interesting and intellectual conversation on going in this thread, with good points being made on both sides of the debate and no stupidity evident... and now you show up... shame....
                                                                Comment
                                                                • DrStale
                                                                  SBR Hall of Famer
                                                                  • 12-07-08
                                                                  • 9692

                                                                  #33
                                                                  Originally posted by ChileCheese

                                                                  There was a really interesting and intellectual conversation on going in this thread, with good points being made on both sides of the debate and no stupidity evident... and now you show up... shame....
                                                                  On the other hand, he just unintentionally proved why Joe Public shouldnt be allowed to make important decisions.
                                                                  Originally posted by Dark Horse
                                                                  If with religion you mean belief system, your belief system is your religion. Again, it matters not what it is. You believe in it, you are loyal to it, would defend it, and yet have no proof of it, other than that, at one point or another, you chose to believe in it. Self-hypnosis. What if there were a snapping of fingers that broke the hypnosis?
                                                                  Comment
                                                                  • Cougar Bait
                                                                    SBR Posting Legend
                                                                    • 10-04-07
                                                                    • 18282

                                                                    #34
                                                                    PokerDummy, yeah I TiVo it usually. Love that show.

                                                                    Anyway, here is how I see it...I don't like the idea of one man's opinion being worth more than 7 million.

                                                                    Democracy to me is idyllic, but think to yourself, dissent is really the highest form of patriotism. If we all agreed, what democracy we do have would cease to exist.

                                                                    Another reason why voting on such issues is so very important, and why the opinion of one ACLU attorney turned judge (gay or not), wreaks of back room deals, and special interest BS. I don't claim to be an authority on such issues, but this looks incredibly underhanded. Nobs did make me look into this man's professional past with his post, and I was interested to find out that:

                                                                    IN 1999, HE REJECTED ARGUMENTS FROM THE PARENTS OF A BOY WHO CLAIMED THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY PRO-GAY COMMENTS THEIR SON'S TEACHER HAD MADE IN THE CLASSROOM.

                                                                    IN 2005, HE SIDED WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WHO PLACED FLIERS PROMOTING "NATURAL FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY VALUES."


                                                                    It does not appear from his past that this is an impartial judge. If someone has issue with that, please retort.
                                                                    Comment
                                                                    • urge2kill
                                                                      SBR MVP
                                                                      • 10-27-09
                                                                      • 1722

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Isn't it just going to get appealed to the state supreme court or something? I doubt this judge is going to have the final word on the matter.
                                                                      Comment
                                                                      Search
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      SBR Contests
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      Working...