Prop 8 Overturned!!

[Satya]

Apparently, they still want to challenge the proposition in California at the ballot box. That leads to another possibility. Will this case reach the Supreme Court if Prop 8 is defeated in 2012 and the proposition is repealed by California voters? Walker's decision paints a majority of California's voters as discriminatory and it is going to force a lot of Californians to look through the rhetoric of "traditional marriage" and "equality" to the real issues. Do same sex couples provide good homes for children? Will same sex marriage alter the social norms of heterosexual marriage? Does California have an interest in supporting two different classes of legally recognized relationships? These are the questions Californians should have been discussing in 2008, and for failing to do so, they must face this ruling today.

 

[Skoffin]

Can't say I'm overly concerned, but I also do not agree with the argument given as I do not consider marriage to be a 'right'.

 

[Bird]

Well, if they're going to allow straight marriage... this is good.

But personally, I STILL think marriage should be abolished as a legal status for everyone. Joint property seems like a bad concept. Marriage should be ceremonial.

I feel like married people do get advantages due to those rules that they don't really deserve, and that some people just get married in order to take advantage of them.

Who doesn't want tax benefits and your spouses' social security after they pass on?

 

[crystaluni]

Honestly the abolition of the term marriage from law and have it replaced with civil unions I would think would be a better way to go about this. The fundis would get their tradition and everyone else their guaranteed benefits...

I had the same thoughts months ago. It is the duty of the state to support and protect civil unions as this not only protects the rights of the partners, but also their children who comprise the future of the country. What comprises a sacred union (marriage) should be decided by religious institutions. Government can create civil unions between same-sex partners, churches should not be obliged to do so. For instance, if you insist on being united with a partner of the same sex, but the church you go to frowns upon such unions, then you have the freedom to legalize your union elsewhere. If the church you go to accepts same sex unions as sacred, there should be no problem with that either if you go ahead with the civil union.

Edit: And I just wanted to add that while a civil union implies a contract, the term marriage (historically speaking) implies a (sacramental) covenant where the union signifies more than the simple economic/physical/emotional/psychological union of persons. The sooner the terms are clarified, the more quickly any remaining issues will be resolved.

 

[athenian200]

Who doesn't want tax benefits and your spouses' social security after they pass on?

Sure, people want it, but I really don't see how they deserve it. They want a reward from the government for getting married and having a family? That's absurd to me, and it would sound absurd to everyone else if it weren't a tradition.

I'm sure people would also like to get tax benefits for being intelligent, popular, or beautiful, but that doesn't mean we give it to them.

 

[Kavalan]

Sure, people want it, but I really don't see how they deserve it. They want a reward from the government for getting married and having a family? That's absurd to me, and it would sound absurd to everyone else if it weren't a tradition.

It is the fact that people who have (generally) lived together for extended periods of time become financially co-depended or if one is a stay at home, dependent. If one were to pass away the one whom was co-dependent could/will see a sharp decline in their quality of life. If a dependent member loses their spouse they are, for lack of a better word, SOL. Especially if they are near or beyond retiring age.

Edit:
Also for immediate tax purposes if one were to file jointly the sum of two people's income could technically put them into a tax bracket that would cause them undue hardship if they were to file separately. Thus the break to ensure that such occurrences don't not happen frequently.

 

[athenian200]

It is the fact that people who have (generally) lived together for extended periods of time become financially co-depended or if one is a stay at home, dependent. If one were to pass away the one whom was co-dependent could/will see a sharp decline in their quality of life. If a dependent member loses their spouse they are, for lack of a better word, SOL. Especially if they are near or beyond retiring age.

So basically, it's like welfare or something, for married people, due to the co-dependent relationships they tend to form that make them unable to support themselves?

Edit:
Also for immediate tax purposes if one were to file jointly the sum of two people's income could technically put them into a tax bracket that would cause them undue hardship if they were to file separately. Thus the break to ensure that such occurrences don't not happen frequently.

The problem is that I don't think their income should be added together in the first place and taxed as a whole. Each individual should only be taxed based on their own income, not their partners.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have mentioned this. It's off topic. We should get back to discussing the matter at hand.

 

[Kavalan]

So basically, it's like welfare or something, for married people, due to the co-dependent relationships they tend to form that make them unable to support themselves?

Correct one partner may make sacrifices in job opportunities for the family. Work a lesser job for more time with the kids. As I pointed out this is a more end of life and saying just get a job isn't an option anymore.

The problem is that I don't think their income should be added together in the first place and taxed as a whole. Each individual should only be taxed based on their own income, not their partners.

In a marriage as such ones money is not being pooled for ones own use but rather the majority goes towards the 'family' and thus should be seen as a sum as two people are contributing to it. Also why do two tax returns when one sum accurately portrays the family?

This is only the financial reasons for it. There are other such as next of kin, child care, Hospital visits, etc.. It is beyond just some money.

 

[Holden On]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html


Great news!!!

equality for all!!

Woot!! Hope it sticks. Either way, it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Razare]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html


Great news!!!

equality for all!!

I agree with letting gays get married, I totally support it.

What I don't support are judges making unilateral policy decisions for states. It's one thing to say "it's unconstitutional", and it's another to start passing your own laws from the bench that overrule other laws. How I heard his judgement described, it very much sounded like this is what happened. Maybe that was just liberal media getting over-zealous. I really don't know, since I'm not an expert on the California constitution.

 

[Kavalan]

well it is legal precedence that the law passed by the people violated the 14th amendment and thus voided the law and brought the system back to where it was prior to the vote. He did put a legal hold as to say that his action does not take immediate effect and there is a waiting period.

 

[Satya]

What I don't support are judges making unilateral policy decisions for states. It's one thing to say "it's unconstitutional", and it's another to start passing your own laws from the bench that overrule other laws. How I heard his judgement described, it very much sounded like this is what happened. Maybe that was just liberal media getting over-zealous. I really don't know, since I'm not an expert on the California constitution.

I'm sick of those "judicial activism," "legislating from the bench," and "overturning the will of the people" arguments that the right has recycled over and over again.

The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters, nor any other ballot measure passed in any other state. The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...

Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.

 

[894tt3h9]

I'm really happy to hear it's been over turned. Up in Canada we don't have to worry about any of this, and I'm really thankful for it. I can't imagine what it must be like to feel that you don't have the right to marry the person you're in love with. I hope that the rest of the states follow suit.

 

[magister343]

The idea that anyone has a right to a state sanctioned marriage sounds simply silly to me. Of course, being a privilege instead of a right would not not make the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause any less applicable.

I'd rather marriage loose its legal meaning, but don't expect to see that happen and frankly do not care much about the issue. I am rather annoyed at the decision though, because it was worded in such a way that really got strong Conservatives/Evangelicals like my father all riled up. He is now in such a mood that it is pretty much impossible to express any sort of dissent. Attacking the religious backing for the law so harshly makes it even harder for those of us who believed that we need need separation of church and state for the church's sake to get those who think we must remain a christian nation to listen. I can only imagine how bad the pastor at my family's church will be on Sunday. I've long been trying to argue that we should find some other church as this guy clearly cares more about fighting the Culture War than actually living my Christ's teachings that we love our neighbors as ourselves, but the polarization of this ruling will almost certainly make that job a lot harder. (At least I only have to go there with them 2 more times before moving back to school.)

 

[Raccoon Love]

The real issue is not the marriage rights issue. The fact that the GLBT community does not get the same rights as any other human being is what bugs the most.

Sure we can remain quiet and avoid all this controversy, but would that be fair?. The ignorance in the end is what keeps the opponents of GLBT rights always getting the better end of the stick. Sometimes we have no choice but to stand up and express our freedom, just like the African American community did decades ago.

 

[Daeledin]

I have to admit my complete failure to paying attention to the world lately. I first heard about this yesterday on...The O'Reily Factor....gugh, *gag*, *chokes*. Such is the price of visiting my parents house.

Of course I'm hoping for the appeal court and inevitably the supreme court to be decisive and drop the axe on this issue. Let it stand and swath the banning legislation around the nation so we as a whole can finally move onto better things. Letting time slowly siphon the hatred out of people with visibility, reality, and tolerance.

 

[Razare]

Well, look, I've never read the California constitution. If there's stuff in there about how and why the gay marriage law was a violation (which others have suggested there is), then I support overturning it.

I agree that many great things have come about by judicial activism.

Why does it have to come to that, though? Why can't our legislative bodies pass decent laws to begin with? Why do the courts always have to "fix" things that are broken in our systems.

I'm just a political nihilist, and the fact that judicial activism is necessary proves my point.

 

[Satya]

Well, look, I've never read the California constitution. If there's stuff in there about how and why the gay marriage law was a violation (which others have suggested there is), then I support overturning it.

This has nothing to do with the California Constitution. Prop 8 was overturned because it violated the United States Constitution. Namely the 14th Amendment.

I agree that many great things have come about by judicial activism.

This is not judicial activism because the judge found 80 findings of fact. That means the judge based his decision entirely on evidence presented at the trial. The opposite side failed miserably at trial because they could only present two witnesses which were found to be entirely without credibility.

Why does it have to come to that, though? Why can't our legislative bodies pass decent laws to begin with? Why do the courts always have to "fix" things that are broken in our systems.

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative. It was the people petitioning and then voting to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. 51% of voters in California in 2008 voted to support Prop 8. However, this judge ruled that Prop 8 is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, which means that Prop 8 is dealing with a "fundamental right" which means that the state is not allowed to put it for a vote anymore than it can put up freedom of religion or speech to a public vote.

I'm just a political nihilist, and the fact that judicial activism is necessary proves my point.

What is your definition of "judicial activism"? Since this case was founded on evidence, it can't exactly be called activism unless you wish to argue that the evidence was all based on opinion. And what is your point?

 

[Zero Angel]

It's good to know that the judge made the difficult move of making that ruling. He's probably going to get some backlash for that, but it's good to know that some people have the integrity to stand up to what's right for the people rather than letting popular opinion get in the way.

 

[Satya]

It's good to know that the judge made the difficult move of making that ruling. He's probably going to get some backlash for that, but it's good to know that some people have the integrity to stand up to what's right for the people rather than letting popular opinion get in the way.

Oh yeah, the AFA is already trying to get hm impeached. Go figure.