California Proposition 8 Overturned!

[ParkTrips]

I really can't believe you brought up the WBC - that's like saying all Muslims are bad based on the actions of a few radical terrorists. Most who disapprove of gay marriage are just conservative people who value their church and beliefs above all

 

Marriage is a right that everyone can "enjoy."

actually, whether or not marriage is a right is the $64k question being challenged in court. Basically, they have to prove that marriage is a right to be in violation of the 14th amendment (which I believe will be done, over and over again)

[davisal771]

^^ The Westboro Baptist Church makes me sick to my stomach. And your right; As much as everyone absolutely hates them, we can't deny them the rights to protest, because, its, well, a right.

[monsterfan99]

All these issues could be solved if marriage was no longer a legal contract (straight or gay.) Turn everyone into civil unions and let the religious folks have their marriage back.

[ParkTrips]

^ That's what the Libertarian party wants

[netdvn]

Coming from a conservative home, I honestly could care less about letting gays marry. If they're not breaking any actual laws, they should be allowed to marry.

 

A large portion of the country is deeply religious and many religions denounce gay marriage so as a lot of people have said before, why not remove the term "marriage" and use "civil union" instead?

 

Meh... In the long run, I feel this debate will pretty much last forever as long as religion is against gay marriage.

[NorCalAndrew]

Well fellow gays, it was cool while it lasted. We're once again deemed a minority until at least December..

 

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court has extended a stay on same-sex marriages in California until it decides whether a ban on such unions is constitutional.

 

It is just the latest turn in a protracted legal battle over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban.

 

The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, came less than a week after a federal district judge, Vaughn R. Walker, lifted a stay he had imposed to allow proponents of the ban to argue why same-sex marriages should not proceed. On Aug. 4, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

 

Even when lifting his stay on Thursday, Judge Walker allowed six days for the Ninth Circuit to review his ruling. That left many gay and lesbian couples and their supporters hopeful that same-sex marriages would resume Wednesday at 5 p.m., when Judge Walker’s stay would have expired.

 

That will not happen. Now, such weddings will not resume until, at least, the appeals court decides the case. And perhaps not until it is decided by the United States Supreme Court, where it seems to be headed.

 

The Ninth Circuit panel, made up of Judges Edward Leavy, Michael Daly Hawkins and Sidney R. Thomas, determined that a stay pending the appeal was appropriate.

 

The panel requested the first briefs to be filed in September and for the appeal to be heard in court in December.

 

Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law at the Loyola Law School Los Angeles, said the ruling “takes the heat off the Supreme Court,” which was likely to have been asked for an emergency stay by those who support Proposition 8 if the Ninth Circuit had not acted.

 

But Mr. Hasen added that the stay’s putting a halt to any potential marriages did not mean that the Ninth Circuit would necessarily rule in favor of Proposition 8.

 

“I don’t think that the granting of the stay means much, if anything, about how the Ninth Circuit will rule on the merits,” he said. “It won’t be the same panel deciding the merits as decided the stay motion.”

 

Mr. Hasen added he believed that even supporters of same-sex marriage could see the logic of extending a stay.

 

One issues most likely to be settled by the appeals court is that of legal standing. Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown of California — named as defendants in the case — have voiced opposition to Proposition 8.

 

That left the defense of the measure primarily to its ballot sponsors, including the group Protectmarriage.com. Some legal experts have questioned, however, whether a group that is not charged with enforcing a law can be found to be responsible for defending it.

 

- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/17prop.html?src=mv

[Sir Clinksalot]

^ Sad ... although not surprising.

[deguy123]

^^ I was fuming when I heard this on the way back from vacation.....I'm so over people treating gays like second class citizens!

[jynx242]

^It does kind of suck, doesn't it. I do, however, agree with what Parktrips posted. People really just need to mind their own business. You can't legislate morality. Doesn't work. I think the great state of California has other things that they need to worry about at this juncture.

 

I'm choosing to think of this as "growing pains" for equal rights for everyone. Funny though, California used to be the gay "mecca." Now I guess we should all move to Iowa .

 

David

[Bolliger&Mabillard]

All this really stinks. It's giving rational people who are religious a bad name. I'm christian and whole-heartedly support gay marriage, or as I refer to it, "Something that has nothing to do with me". As a Black in this country, there were (and in small doses still are) religious views that shaped how civil laws were drafted. Perhaps if we lived in a society where more people could "respect" others in their life choices, things wouldn't be so bad.

[Sir Clinksalot]

Great opinion piece regarding the "legal" shortcomings of the "Yes on 8" side. While not without it faults, it does present them well.

 

On Prop 8, it's the evidence, stupid - CNN.com

 

There's a big difference between a political debate about same-sex marriage and the recent hard-fought court challenge to the California ban, Proposition 8.

 

In politics, anything goes: Vague, sinister comments about same-sex marriage threatening children or undermining the sanctity of heterosexual marriage were prevalent during the Prop 8 campaign. In court, same-sex marriage opponents needed solid evidence to back up these and other claims.

 

Despite "able and energetic counsel," they never produced it. That's why they lost, resoundingly, in the federal district court. And that lack of evidence should dog opponents up through the chain of appeals that is now beginning, because appellate courts are required to review only the evidence in the court record and to give great deference to Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact. He was there, after all, presiding over the trial, and the appellate judges weren't.

 

And what a lopsided trial he presided over. All the anti-same-sex marriage arguments imploded when subjected to the rules of evidence.

 

"You don't have to have evidence of this point," counsel responded to the judge's question asking what support existed for their claim that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage."

No, sorry, at trial, you do have to have evidence. Of this point and every point. (And since -- as even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once pointed out in another case -- the sterile and elderly are allowed to marry, it can't be all about procreation.)

 

Trials turn on admissible evidence -- primarily credible witness testimony or documents, in this type of case. And Prop 8 proponents did not have it. Over and over again, Walker's decision focused on the evidence, the mountain of reliable facts offered by gay marriage advocates, and the glaring lack thereof proffered by gay marriage opponents.

 

The same-sex-marriage advocates presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses.

 

One plaintiff testified that marriage would be a way to tell "our friends, our family ... that this is a lifetime commitment ... we are not girlfriends. We are not partners. We are married." The other three presented similarly compelling, credible testimony about the damage to their dignity, the economic losses, the sting of discrimination they suffered daily due to their legally enshrined second-class citizenship.

 

Opponents offered exactly zero lay witnesses to explain, say, how their heterosexual marriages would be undermined by same-sex marriage, or how children would be harmed by a neighbor's same-sex marriage -- though these were central arguments made during the Prop 8 campaign.

 

The evidence at trial proved that children raised by gay or lesbian couples are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. That gay folks are no more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals. That marriage has evolved in this country to allow for women's equality and interracial marriage. That no "undermining" of straight marriage would occur if marriage further evolved to allow same-sex couples to marry, too.

 

This evidence was put forward by an impressive roster of Harvard and Yale marriage historians, UMass Amherst and UCLA School of Law economists, a UCLA psychology professor, a Columbia University epidemiologist, a psychologist and a political scientist. Many had written extensive peer-reviewed articles and books in their areas of expertise. All their testimony withstood full and fair cross-examination.

 

On the other side, pretrial, same-sex marriage opponents had designated a number of witnesses. But when push came to shove, at trial they elected not to call most of them. Walker pointed out that they didn't call a single official proponent of Prop 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Prop 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. Ouch.

In a nice trial "gotcha" moment, gay marriage advocates read in deposition testimony from two witnesses who were to testify for the other side -- yet their pretrial testimony instead supported the gay marriage advocates. Opponents offered no explanation for why their witnesses flipped. Another embarrassment.

 

Ultimately, same-sex marriage opponents called only two witness, the founder of the Institute for American Values, who the court found lacked qualifications to offer expert testimony, and a Claremont College professor, who "sought to rebut only a limited aspect" of the plaintiffs' case.

 

Here's the kind of "evidence" gay marriage opponents offered at trial: Homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children, their witness argued, and allowing same-sex marriage would cause states "to fall into Satan's hands." The witness' source of information? "The internet."

 

There's not a judge in this country who could rely on "evidence" like that.

Walker made 80 meticulous, detailed findings of fact on every aspect of marriage, with hundreds of citations to the evidence cited at trial. Perhaps the most critical finding was No. 58: "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including ... gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals."

 

Ultimately, Walker found, that was the heart of what same-sex marriage opponents advanced: "a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples." Constitutionally, in a country that guarantees all Americans "equal protection" of the laws, that is unacceptable.

 

Wanted to spend a second on the part quoted below:

 

The evidence at trial proved that children raised by gay or lesbian couples are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.

 

I'm proof of this. I'm just as screwed up as anybody raised by a "traditional" 2-parent (man/woman) family. My issues have nothing to do with being raised by a gay mother.

[ArizonaGuy]

I am going to jump in now...

 

Here is where I stand. I support Prop 8. And this is mainly on my religious feelings. But where I probably am different from a bunch of people, the only reason I am against it is because it has the word marriage. I (me, myself, the person posting this) don't have a problem with civil unions. My issue is when the word marriage comes into play because I believe that marriage should be with man and woman only. It really isn't my place to judge your lifestyle. That is all I am going to say on this subject.

 

I don't want to get into a debate ... but sometimes it just can't be helped ... and please take this in the meaning that it's meant, not trying to start a flame war ... that being said ...

 

Marriage, at least in this country is NOT a religious pact, it's a legal proceeding. Period. People who are atheists can get married. People can get married by a judge. Even when you get married by a priest or a pastor you still have to go to the state and get a marriage license. Letting two men or two women get married has NOTHING to do with your church or your religion. If you don't want gay people getting married in your church, then don't let them get married in your church. There are PLENTY of other places they can have it done.

 

My wife and I didn't get married in a church nor did we have a religious ceremony. Are you going to tell me my marriage is void because it had nothing to do with religion?

 

Thank you Senor Clinksalot!!! VERY WELL SAID! There is more I could add to it but I think you hit the nail right on the head.