the conservative case for same sex marriage

[kramwest1]

This is part of the problem:

Emmer campaign donated to controversial Christian punk-rock ministry � Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media.

 

[martha]

Holy shit.

 

[maycocksean]

Holy shit.

Pun intended?

 

[martha]

Sure.

 

[deep]

California Proposition 8 decision tomorrow.

 

[deep]

CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection. Court enjoins enforcement of Prop 8... Will be released at 2 pm pst

this is the only way a reasonable jurist would rule

but, this most likely will go to the U S Supreme Court

and William Kennedy will have to decide if he wants to join the other 4 backward thinking conservatives and forever have this stain on his name, too.

 

[corianderstem]

 

[trojanchick99]

Hell Yeah!

 

[deep]

"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.”]

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...

.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html < link to article

 

[Irvine511]

and now, it really begins.

 

[deep]

first it goes to the 9th Circuit
and I can not see them over turning this ruling


then it goes to the U S Supreme Court,

Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court - CNN.com






also let's note this decision was handed down by Judge Walker, appointed by GHW Bush and argued by Ted Olson, G W Bush' Solicitor General.

the conservative case for same sex marriage

 

[trojanchick99]

I love you Judge Walker:

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.

 

[Irvine511]

SCOTUS could also refuse to hear it.

they may well do that.

 

[deep]

I think this court will take it

do you think they will want it to stand?

 

[Irvine511]

I think this court will take it

do you think they will want it to stand?

they may not want another Roe v Wade on their hands.

and by that i mean the sociopolitical repercussions of the ruling.

then again, Roberts is on some sort of warpath, so maybe.

it's quite clear that Olsen/Boies demolished the opposition, i see no reason why they can't do the same.

here's more from Walker:

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 California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and 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."

[...]

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings."

“Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.”

 

[deep]

if the 9th Circuit upholds this

then 11 States, 20 per cent of the U S population
could strike down all the gay marriage bans in their states?

AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA 61,403,307 19.72%

is this right? anitram?

 

[VintagePunk]

Congratulations California, welcome to the present.

 

[martha]

Congratulations California, welcome to the present.

Thanks.

For now at least.

 

[kramwest1]

The SCOTUS

 

[melon]

if the 9th Circuit upholds this

then 11 States, 20 per cent of the U S population
could strike down all the gay marriage bans in their states?

is this right? anitram?

The nature of the U.S. Senate means that a bunch of small states effectively hold the states with higher population hostage on a regular basis.

Nobody seems to wonder if that's right, but it happens. The nature of the judiciary, likewise, is to uphold the law without regard to populist appeal.

 

[melon]

It’s only judicial “arrogance” or “activism” when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.

.

 

[kramwest1]

The nature of the U.S. Senate means that a bunch of small states effectively hold the states with higher population hostage on a regular basis.

Nobody seems to wonder if that's right, but it happens. The nature of the judiciary, likewise, is to uphold the law without regard to populist appeal.

I don't want to get off-topic, but I wouldn't have as much problem with the disproportionate representation in the Senate if the House wasn't so disproportionate.
The arbitrary cap of 435 Representatives means that Montana has 1 Representative for almost 1 million people whereas their neighbor Wyoming has 1 Rep. for just over 500,000. This is one disparity.
The other problem is that it is in the Constitution that there shall be 1 Rep. per 30,000 people--we currently are at approx. 1 Rep. per 650,000 people.
Hopefully, this may change with the 2010 Census and a lawsuit.

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyway, it probably warrants its own thread.

 

[martha]

I'm surprised there's no goutrage in here. No complaining that the "will of the people" is more important than the application of the California Constitution to all our law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Where is the outrage?!1?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm surprised there's no goutrage in here. No complaining that the "will of the people" is more important than the application of the California Constitution to all our law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Where is the outrage?!1?

the problem with the courts, though, is that you have to actually set out and defend a position, you can't rely on fear, emotionalism, etc.

and it turns out that the anti-gay folks couldn't defend their position.

there really isn't any rational reason to prevent gay people from legally marrying one another. we might not like it, but that's not how laws work.

outrage is hard when you realize that you've been soundly intellectually defeated. the only remaining position intellectually coherent position that isn't motivated by animus -- Olsen/Boies did a brilliant job in demonstrating that Prop 8 was motivated by animus, not to mention eviscerating the Prop 8 "expert" "witnesses" -- is the whole "do we get to vote on rights or not." and this is why we have the courts. just because the majority might want things to be one way -- for women not to be able to vote, for profound nostalgia for a Jim Crow south, or whatever -- that does not mean that their "will" makes law, or reality.

the ruling is so thorough, and so soundly reasoned, that it seems likely that Anthony Kennedy may be unable to disagree.

 

[kramwest1]

the problem with the courts, though, is that you have to actually set out and defend a position, you can't rely on fear, emotionalism, etc.

and it turns out that the anti-gay folks couldn't defend their position.

there really isn't any rational reason to prevent gay people from legally marrying one another. we might not like it, but that's not how laws work.

outrage is hard when you realize that you've been soundly intellectually defeated. the only remaining position intellectually coherent position that isn't motivated by animus -- Olsen/Boies did a brilliant job in demonstrating that Prop 8 was motivated by animus, not to mention eviscerating the Prop 8 "expert" "witnesses" -- is the whole "do we get to vote on rights or not." and this is why we have the courts. just because the majority might want things to be one way -- for women not to be able to vote, for profound nostalgia for a Jim Crow south, or whatever -- that does not mean that their "will" makes law, or reality.

the ruling is so thorough, and so soundly reasoned, that it seems likely that Anthony Kennedy may be unable to disagree.

But what about the lost revenue from so many people no longer having to file taxes as single?
And the cost to business to cover all of the new "spouses?"
And the property tax revenue lost from people no longer having to file their house as "Semi-Homesteaded" meaning they have a "renter." Huh?

Do you like deficits? Are you anti-business?



Sorry, I could barely stop from drowning in snark.

I think those are the final arguments that anyone could have against marriage equality. (Which is to say there are none.)

 

[martha]

But what about the lost revenue from so many people no longer having to file taxes as single?
And the cost to business to cover all of the new "spouses?"
And the property tax revenue lost from people no longer having to file their house as "Semi-Homesteaded" meaning they have a "renter." Huh?

Do you like deficits? Are you anti-business?

Nice.

 

[nathan1977]

I'm surprised there's no goutrage in here.

What's "goutrage"? Is it when you realize you have a case of the gout, and you're real mad about it?

A sharply divided judicial decision came down, with which some people agree, and with which other people don't. Shocker. It would be more convenient (for some) if those who disagreed were brandishing pitchforks, wouldn't it? But they aren't.

Two brief thoughts. I disagree with Justice George's statement: "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage", which of course has been hotly debated here in FYM. (I didn't know the judiciary had the power to decide that, but there you go.) The second is that I agree with the dissent, including Justice Corrigan's opening statement: "In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not." I'm always going to land on the side of representative government, but it's a conversation we've discussed exhaustively in the past. And will probably again at some point.

Outraged enough for you?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

thinkprogress.org

Conservatives Blame Loss In Prop 8 Case On Judge’s Homosexuality

Last night, after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, supporters of Proposition 8 expressed disappointment and pledged to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But some conservative activists lashed out against Walker, using his sexual orientation to dismiss the decision altogether:

American Families Association: “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society.

National Organization For Marriage: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.”

POWERLINE:“Conservatives have long said that the day would come when liberal judges declare the Constitution unconstitutional. That happened today, when a gay federal judge in San Francisco, relying on the opinions of mostly-gay ‘expert’ witnesses, ruled that an amendment to the California constitution, which was adopted in perfectly proper fashion by a substantial majority of voters, is ‘unconstitutional.’

Bishop Harry Jackson, chair of “Stand for Marriage DC”: “The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of black voters in California, have just had their core civil right — the right to vote — stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people…this is a travesty of justice.”

Pat Buchanan: It is unnatural….an older white guy handed down the decision and he happened to be gay. That might have had something to do with it.



Ironically, Walker was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and re-nominated and confirmed under President George H. W. Bush. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “opposed his nomination because of his alleged ‘insensitivity’ to gays and the poor.” The Democrats objected to Walker’s role in representing the U.S. Olympic Committee “in its successful effort to prevent an athletic competition in San Francisco from being called the Gay Olympic Games” and for “putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS.”

 

[Irvine511]

A sharply divided judicial decision came down, with which some people agree, and with which other people don't. Shocker. It would be more convenient (for some) if those who disagreed were brandishing pitchforks, wouldn't it? But they aren't.

here's some pitchforks for you:

Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. -- Newt Gingrich

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.” "Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad. “During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008. “Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word." -- Focus on the Family

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately. “Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement. “Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree. “CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.” -- Concerned Women for America

but, i, for one, never expected pitchforks from you. our pitchfork wielders in here have left the room.

Two brief thoughts. I disagree with Justice George's statement: "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage", which of course has been hotly debated here in FYM.

what are the wifely duties that only a woman can do, and what are the husbandly duties that only men can do?

i'm sure that gender matters a great deal to you, as it does to me, but this does not mean that the institution cannot function without a difference in gender.

here's what Walker said:

"ame-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love to do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex" (p. 77, para. 48).

this is really what is so upsetting to some about same-sex marriage, and this is at the heart of the marriage equality movement. you aren't better than we are. we are as good as you. we are as worthy as you. and even if the majority of the population despises that 5%, it doesn't matter because we are still people, you know, endowed with certain inalienable rights by our creator and such.

(I didn't know the judiciary had the power to decide that, but there you go.

)

actually, it's what Olsen/Boies proved, at least to the satisfaction of the judge in question.

The second is that I agree with the dissent, including Justice Corrigan's opening statement: "In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not." I'm always going to land on the side of representative government, but it's a conversation we've discussed exhaustively in the past. And will probably again at some point.

but laws must pass a rational review test when they are challenged -- the absolute lowest possible form of legal scrutiny -- and Prop 8 couldn't even do that. the Prop 8 supporters couldn't even express a coherent, rational explanation for the existence of the law.

most laws can do this. Prop 8 could not.

 

[martha]

What's "goutrage"? Is it when you realize you have a case of the gout, and you're real mad about it?

Nope. It's this:

The second is that I agree with the dissent, including Justice Corrigan's opening statement: "In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not." I'm always going to land on the side of representative government, but it's a conversation we've discussed exhaustively in the past. And will probably again at some point.

The anti-homo side's willingness to rely on the "will of the people" rather than rely on the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Or rather, their willingness to rely on said will when it suits their own prejudices.

Outraged enough for you?

Yep.