tagged w/ Prop 8
-
-
-
MizPiz
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
West Hollywood, California (August 12, 2010) – Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker lifted the stay against same-sex marriages this morning, guaranteeing a second “Summer of Love” across California.
http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=5202West Hollywood, California (August 12, 2010) – Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn... more
-
-
Congressional conservatives denounced the overturn of Proposition 8 and discussed their new resolution against the ruling.
According to Politico, Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Steve King of Iowa, and John Fleming of Louisiana spoke with reporters Tuesday about the Prop. 8 ruling.
“Legalizing an alternative form of marriage dilutes a long-standing and widely accepted standard of marriage as a union between a man and woman,” said Smith, according to Politico. “We should adhere to such standards rather than undertake a massive social experiment with perhaps unknown consequences.”
Smith is introducing a resolution to condemn the ruling, but it holds only symbolic value.
In the video of the press conference, King speaks about his willingness to “take whatever steps, however bold” to challenge the “irrational” ruling from U.S. district court judge Vaughn Walker.
“We can love them all, but we cannot upset the rule of law no matter what our head or our hearts tell us unless we can follow a rational basis to get there,” he says.Congressional conservatives denounced the overturn of Proposition 8 and discussed... more
-
-
The Christian right is launching a personal attack on U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn California's ban on gay marriage. The religious right is arguing that Judge Walker's alleged sexual orientation is reason enough for Judge Walker to recuse himself from the controversial case.
Tony Perkins, head of the influential Family Research Council, and one of the most powerful social conservatives in the nation, told CBS's "Face the Nation," that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision was compromised by the fact that he is "openly homosexual." (It's rumored, but not an open fact, that Walker is gay).
http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m8d8-Christian-right-attacks-Prop-8-Judge-Vaughn-WalkerThe Christian right is launching a personal attack on U.S. District Judge Vaughn... more
-
-
-
A random round up of sophomoric, crass, WTF articles from around the intertubes. This week: Prop 8 is overturned, Montanta Fishburne/Chippy D still wants to be a porn star, and whale sperm hair conditioner. Oh, and plenty of robots and stuff about Japan too.A random round up of sophomoric, crass, WTF articles from around the intertubes. This... more
-
-
(RNS) When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8 on Wednesday (Aug. 4), he said voters' motivation for outlawing gay marriage was clear.
"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote in his sweeping, 136-page decision.
"These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8."
Religion, in Walker's reasoning, amounts to a "private moral view," which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others.
While some legal scholars say Walker's decision lands on firm legal ground--a law must advance a secular purpose to pass constitutional muster--some religious leaders accuse the judge of trying to scrub faith from the public square.
"Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California's voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest," R. Albert Mohler, president of a leading Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, wrote in an online column.
"In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters," Mohler said.
On Thursday, Prop 8's supporters filed an appeal of Walker's decision. Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm involved in the litigation, said the religious freedom argument will play an important role as the case moves up the federal judicial ladder--including, potentially, the Supreme Court.
"At bottom, our strategy here is, and has always been, that in this country we should respect the rights of the people when they do what they have always done: vote based on their religious and moral convictions," Campbell said.
Abolitionists, anti-abortion activists, and civil rights activists have all been motivated by personal faith, Campbell argued. "To be blunt, we felt (Walker's decision) was an all-out attack on religion."
Walker did note, however, that no religion will be forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Howard Friedman, an emeritus law professor at Ohio's University of Toledo, said Walker is not attacking religion per se; he is just not giving religious expression any special consideration.
"He's basically saying that a private moral view isn't a rational basis for legislation," said Friedman, who writes the popular "Religion Clause" blog. "Case law goes both ways on that. There are certainly some cases that say a merely moral view isn't enough to support legislation; on the other hand, there are some cases that talk about laws being a moral view on society."
Walker's reasoning relies, in part, on a 1996 Supreme Court decision that struck down an anti-gay law in Colorado, Friedman said. That decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy--who's considered a key swing vote on the high court--invalidated laws grounded in "animosity toward the class of persons affected."
Walker devotes several pages in his ruling to identifying religion as a prime source of anti-gay animus, listing examples from the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Convention, and noting that 84 percent of weekly churchgoers voted in favor of Prop 8, according to a CNN exit poll.
As if to prove Walker's point, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony released a statement on Wednesday that said, "Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period."
Still, some religious leaders take issue with Walker's conclusion that "religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
"If religion is considered the chief obstacle to gay and lesbian political progress, then it would seem to follow that the state has an obligation to remove that obstacle," said R.R. Reno, a senior editor at First Things, a Catholic journal based in New York.
"That's not going to happen, because the First Amendment protects religious expression," but it could lead to a sidelining of faith in political debate, Reno said.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says Walker is wrong on the law and the church's theology. The Roman Catholic Church holds that homosexuality is not sinful in itself, but that homosexual acts are.
"Freedom of religion and freedom of speech allow us to speak without his deeming us harmful," Walsh said. "Our teaching is our teaching."(RNS) When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition... more
-
-
"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."
Walker concluded in a decision Wednesday that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians. The initiative passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.
As governor, Schwarzenegger is named as a defendant in the case, although he remained neutral in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The governor was against the initiative when it was on the ballot and chose not to defend the constitutional amendment in court. He filed his brief Friday in his role as a named defendant and on behalf of two other administration officials.
The Schwarzenegger administration contended in the brief that there is no governmental or public interest in continuing a ban on gay marriage after Walker's decision." Instead, the administration said that allowing such marriages to resume would further the state's interest in recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians. It also said that there would be no administrative burden for the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. California issued 18,000 such licenses before passage of Proposition 8.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/06/2942696/let-gays-begin-marrying-schwarzenegger.html#ixzz0vtsCWZdq"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the... more
-
-
juicie
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Calif. attorney general Jerry Brown has formally opposed a move by Proposition 8 proponents to block marriages for same-sex couples pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Though the attorney general's office had opposed a request by plaintiffs' attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson to block Prop. 8 prior to trial, Brown wrote in a motion filed to the court on Friday afternoon that "the public interest weighs against [Prop. 8's] continued enforcement," after U.S. District judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled the ballot measure unconstitutional.
"[W]hile there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this Court’s conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," Brown wrote. "Accordingly, the harm to the plaintiffs outweighs any harm to the state defendants."
Attorneys representing Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also wrote the court in opposition to a stay: "The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court’s judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," they wrote. "Doing so is consistent with California’s long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."
Prop. 8 proponents have asked for a stay of Walker's decision on the grounds that "another purported window of same-sex marriage in California would cause irreparable harm."
Walker asked attorneys to submit arguments for or against a stay to the court by Friday but has not indicated when he will make a decision.Calif. attorney general Jerry Brown has formally opposed a move by Proposition 8... more
-
-
Yesterday's decision to strike down California's Prop 8 anti-gay marriage law was sound. The judge did an impressive job of listing all the factual and legal reasons - 80 in all - showing that the law is unconstitutional. An improvement to celebrate, but also an event that highlights anti-civil rights crudaders' thinking.Yesterday's decision to strike down California's Prop 8 anti-gay marriage... more
-
-
Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8 -- the voter initiative that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as heterosexual -- is unconstitutional. The usual pro-Prop 8, anti-gay marriage suspects began hollering almost immediately.
Here, the best of the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it):
The Founding Fathers Would Be Shocked
From the chairman of National Organization for Marriage, or NOM:
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.
Shocked, probably. But $10 says the Founding Fathers would also be shocked by women wearing pants, a black man becoming president and cable news.
But The Judge Is Gay
From the president of the American Family 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. That's why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.
His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He'd have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.
This Will Be Dangerous When We Have A Lesbian On The Supreme Court
From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich:
Today's notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.
In other words, "cough cough Kagan's totally gay cough."
What Next? Is Jesus Unconstitutional?
From Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):
Today's wrongful court decision is another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage.Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8 -- the voter initiative that... more
-
-
So with all due respect, and as my new favorite judge ever expressed much more elegantly: that long-ago talking shrubbery or flaming cow, while inspirational and possibly entirely real, is no excuse for acting like an asshole today.So with all due respect, and as my new favorite judge ever expressed much more... more
-
-
Seth MacFarlane expresses his thoughts about the most-talked about topics of past few weeks. Last week a judge passed a ruling about the Arizona immigration law and declared that some parts of the law must be removed.
Read more from source: http://www.buzztab.com/latest-news/seth-macfarlane-rants-about/#ixzz0vqsh7tqbSeth MacFarlane expresses his thoughts about the most-talked about topics of past few... more
-
-
A federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, stating that it discriminates against gay men and women. The ruling hands supporters of gay marriage at least a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter in what has been a long battle over the ban, Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008. But on Wednesday, the ruling provided fresh new winds behind those who feel that marriage is not, as the voters of California and many other states have claimed, solely the province of a man and a woman.
“Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” wrote Judge Vaughn R. Walker. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” The very existence of a federal court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, set off cheers of “We won!” from the large crowds gathered in front of the courthouse in San Francisco. Evening rallies and celebrations were planned in dozens of cities across the state and several across the nation.
This piece includes a number of colorful photographs and four videos, including a music video.
http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/federal-judge-strikes-down-californias-proposition-8-ruling-recognizes-gay-marriage/A federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s ban on same-sex... more
-
-
This is a wonderful day and and steps toward the right for everyone that truly loves one another can marry and devote one's love to another forever. now while that idea scares the hell out of me :) ahahahaha- i think its great that anyone that feels that strongly for another can devote it for life in front of the world. this is indeed a special day - a day that many have passed and not been here to see but always knew that with the unity of the people and the community anything is possible - even the right for true love legally. so go on and celebrate people - its long over due.This is a wonderful day and and steps toward the right for everyone that truly loves... more
-
-
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
12 reasons via GGSA @ UF
http://www.tabloidprodigy.com/?p=177801. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control... more
-
-
In a big step toward equality for all Americans, a federal judge today ruled that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Although it's a victory for gay rights, the case is likely to find its way to the US Supreme Court where a final decision will be made. It's also likely to go down in history as one of the landmark cases for equal rights, along side cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.In a big step toward equality for all Americans, a federal judge today ruled that... more
-
-
-
-
hektic
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
CONCLUSION
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.CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay... more
-
-
Judge Joseph Tauro found that the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA's Section 3 was in violation of the 10th amendment in the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.
Additionally he found that in the case of Gill v. Office of Personel Management that DOMA violates the 5th amendment clause of equal protection.
http://gay.americablog.com/2010/07/breaking-section-3-of-doma-ruled.html
Everyone is still on pins and needles about the Proposition 8 ruling pending by Judge Vaughan Walker. It is due sometime this month.Judge Joseph Tauro found that the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA's Section 3 was... more
-
