California's Prop 8 Overturned

[filkertom]

Oh yeah. There's going to be a messy, nasty appeals process on this one, but we're on the stronger side of it.

ETA: A couple of pertinent quotes:

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

[...]

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.

And web embed of the decision.

So frickin' cool.

Comments

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

HELL yeah.

[infinitemorning.livejournal.com]

Oh hell yes. We may not have done the impossible just yet, but we've done the rather unlikely. I don't know about you, but I'm feelin' mighty.

[realinterrobang.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I think you just rescued what was otherwise a wretched and thoroughly demoralising day for me.

[sveethot.livejournal.com]

This is such wonderful news. Happy day!

[hbruton.livejournal.com]

There's hope for the US yet. Such good news!
1

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

I've been tweeting this, but one part of the decision I came across has me cracking up.

When Lawrence v. Texas came down, in 2003, Justice Scalia wrote an angry dissent. His argument included this:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."

His point being, if the states can't ban sodomy for moral reasons, what's next, gay marriage? (gasp, clutch pearls, fainting couch optional)

Of course, Scalia was a massive windbag, and his homophobia oozed from every drop of ink in that dissent.

Anyway.

Judge Walker quoted this exact wording to demonstrate how promoting children could not be a legitimate state interest leading to banning gay marriage--because as even Scalia said, the sterile and elderly can marry.

[sdelmonte]

Snap!

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

I'd be cracking up too, if "Justice" Scalia wasn't going to be one of those deciding the appeal.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Hooray!

Now let's start the process to get strip the Mormons of their tax-free status for direct political involvement.

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

As few people as possible should pay taxes. Why don't we, instead, *extend* that tax-free status to believers of all stripes, including atheists and agnostics?

Tom

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The obvious becomes official!

Now we fight all the way up the ladder, and if we can win in the SCOTUS, marriage equality (in which any number and gender of adults can marry together) takes another step towards reality.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

This this this this this.

Maybe in my lifetime, world? Please? and in my triad's lifetime, while I'm asking for the impossible?

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

I don't recognize the right of the state to regulate marriage.

Therefore, I am pleased that a law expressly forbidding marriage between people of the same gender have been rendered moot.

Tom

[kengr]

Alas, we use the same word for a "religious" ceremony/statuis and for a bundle of legal rights that the state *does* have some interest in (or at least thinks should go with being married).

If the legal contract that constitutes the *legal* type of marriage wasn't worthwhile, nobody would want it. And it does serve far too many useful purposes. So at the very least there's a *legit* state interest in having the contracts be properly recognized (ie so some jerk somewhere can't say "you aren't really married, so I don't have to let you do X")

Getting the state to restrict its interest in *who* gets married to it being freely consented to and non-fraudulent would be nice.

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

I'm getting teary-eyed over this, thinking of an awesome gay couple I know in California. A couple years ago, one of them asked me to knit a Gryffindor scarf for his hunny because as far as he was concerned, his hunny was a hero. I know they've been talking about marriage off and on over the last couple years. I hope this means the talk can segue to actual wedding plans now.

I'm just a big ol' goop when it comes watching friends get married and live happily ever after.

[ladycheron.livejournal.com]

That's one small step, but a step toward recognition. Now to get the "one person" and "one person" to change, that's going to be a WHOLE lot harder. Marriage is/should be a CIVIL contract between two or more adults, and as such should have no more governmental regulation than any other contract.

But good news so far!

[kengr]

Marriage is a "special case" in so many ways that there's a need for it to n=be a "standard"/"uniform" contract.

But as I noted above that should be more a matter of ensuring that all marriages get the same rights, privileges and responsibilities.

But the number of folks signing the contract shouldn't be terribly relevant (except that it will *greatly* complicate how some of the rights and responsibilities work).

Age of consent and "not forced" are about all the limitations we need.

[sdelmonte]

I love that the lawyers who did this were political opponents. Clearly, this is already going beyond just politics. As human rights should.

I am not ready to celebrate totally, though. The five clods in judges' robes in DC seem likely to get in the way in the end.

Let's End This Fight Once and For All: SCotUS, PLEASE HELP!

[balthrop.livejournal.com]

This ruling comes as no surprise to me. The judge is reported to be a gay man. If you are a gay judge in San Francisco, you are going to rule Prop 8, which got 7 million affirmative votes, unconstitutional. This will be appealed to the 9th Circuit, which also happens to be based in San Francisco. That means they will affirm his ruling. Because of those factors of potential bias, the ruling and the potential ruling, will be appealed.

Could the Supreme Court of the United States PLEASE save us the time and effort and reach down and snag this case? It comes down to a very simple question: is marraige a right, which no state or the Feds can imfringe upon, or is a legal privledge, which the states can regulate?

If the former, than gay people can marry across the USA and this fight is over. If the latter, then the voters (not liberal judges) need to elect enough represenatives in the 47 states where marriage is defined as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (the exact definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, 2006 edition) to make gay marraige legal..

Re: Let's End This Fight Once and For All: SCotUS, PLEASE HELP!

[kengr]

It comes down to a very simple question: is marraige a right, which no state or the Feds can imfringe upon, or is a legal privledge, which the states can regulate?

Already decided 40 years back in Loving v. Virginia

It's *explicitly stated* in that decision that marriage is a fundamental right.

The regulations the states impose are for "legitimate state interests" (waiting periods, blood tests, age of consent, etc)

The question here was (more or less) a matter of whether or not "marriage" can involve two people of the same sex/gender.

If you do some research you'll find that many of the arguments against inter-racial marriage *presented to the Supreme Court* way back when are almost word the same as the ones you hear against gay marriage. Just swap a few key words (race words for sex words, pretty much) and you've got them.

Same thing applies to the arguments against gays in the military. They are again almost identical to the ones used against integrating the military (Whites won't want to serve alongside blacks and we'll have people leaving in droves, etc)

[lariss.livejournal.com]

Yay, yay, and yay.

Infinity.

Now, all we have to do is get it through the Supreme Court. Crossing fingers, holding breath.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

Shorter Judge Walker: Gays are human beings, and so they get the same rights everybody else does.

YAY!

[vik_thor]

:)
yeah!

Though I am one of those who think that Civil Union is better term for what should be applicable to everyone (gay, straight, triads, as long as all partners in the CU are of age of consent), and Marriage be limited to the religious ceremony.

yes, I know that's not a popular view, and I fully recognize that it won't happen.

[lariss.livejournal.com]

This.

As an atheist, I resent people considering my legal contract with my spouse some kind of magical mumbo-jumbo invoking zombie-jebus and his hosts. Ick.

[batyatoon]

Can I get a hell yeah?

HELL YEAH.

*chairdances!*

[mtgat]

*dances with you* :D

Here's the Basic Problem, Folks.

[balthrop.livejournal.com]

I know I stuck my chin out on this thread. I am truly torn on this issue because it forces me to reconsider the two things I love most: my God, and my country.

My religion says that homosexual BEHAVIOR (not gay people) is wrong, however I live in a secular republic where ANYONE's religion (including mine) doesn't decide what is legal. So I have to walk a very fine line when something I disagree with is declared legal: there is a difference between my faith and my country.

It's going to come down to what the word marriage means. There does not seem to be any room for compromise either: From the arguments over the last 10 years, it seems that "civil unions", which I would actually support as a final compromise, will be unacceptable to the left. Likewise any acceptance of gay people is very sadly, unacceptable to the right.

Loving v. Virginia was absolutely needed because at no time could a person ever decide not to be black. Interracial marraige laws were racist by definition and the 14th Ammendment outlawed ALL facets of racial discrimination in 1866. Period. Full Stop. It is horrifying to realize that it took a court 100 years to enforce that principle.

Is being gay the same as being black? I don't know. Because I don't know, does that make me a bigot?

If you want to be gay in the United States, then by all means, do so. Enjoy. Do you want to have a CONSENTING sexual and legal relationship with more than one person? Welcome to the neighborhood. Have fun with it. This is a free country. If you are not harming me or someone else, then go for it.


But the concept of marriage to a significant population of this country entails a spiritual sanction. Whether you want it to our not, the word marraige says "God blesses this activity."


The only ones who can put an end to this once and for all are the members of the Supreme Court (and they don't want it, and are happy for this to go on for as long as they can). Let us end this debate NOW.

Should any of you find yourselves at a certain convention held in mid-September in Dallas, please contact me ahead of time. I would love to buy a bottle of your preferred beverage and continue the polite discussion.

Re: Here's the Basic Problem, Folks.

[skemono.livejournal.com]

I live in a secular republic where ANYONE's religion (including mine) doesn't decide what is legal. So I have to walk a very fine line when something I disagree with is declared legal: there is a difference between my faith and my country.

That should be the end of it, then.

From the arguments over the last 10 years, it seems that "civil unions", which I would actually support as a final compromise, will be unacceptable to the left.

And for good reason: civil unions are not equal to marriage. See here and here (warning: both PDFs).

Loving v. Virginia was absolutely needed because at no time could a person ever decide not to be black.

Depends on your definition. Consider the phenomenon of passing, whereby a "black" person could choose to become "white".

I'm wary about your decision to include this. Are you intimating that gays can choose to be otherwise, despite a complete lack of evidence to demonstrate that, the repeated denials of gay (and straight) people that they could change their sexual orientation, and even the admission of "reparative therapy" hucksters that what they do doesn't change sexual orientation?

If you want to be gay in the United States, then by all means, do so. Enjoy.

We're trying. But it's much harder when people say "Enjoy--but you can't enjoy it together because we won't let you get married."

But the concept of marriage to a significant population of this country entails a spiritual sanction. Whether you want it to our not, the word marraige says "God blesses this activity."

And why does that "significant population" get to define marriage for the rest of the population? For that matter, can that "significant population of this country" for whom marriage entails a spiritual sanction agree on what their God wants out of a marriage? In fact, when you say "God blesses this activity", whose God are you talking about?

After all, numerous religions frown on, if not outright forbid, interfaith marriages, which are allowed in this country.
Some people still believe their religion forbids interracial marriages, but that's okay, too.
I believe Catholicism forbids divorce and remarriage, but that's still allowed in this country.
Then there are religions which expressly allow polygamy, which is denied in this country.
And of course there are numerous religious denominations whose God is A-OK with same-sex marriages.

Why should your religious understanding of marriage get enshrined into law, but not all those others?

Nobody is disputing that many people have a religious outlook on marriage. But whether they want it be to or not, marriage is a civil institution, and their religious views on the matter don't get to rule everyone else.

[tarrestrial.livejournal.com]

There was much rejoicing and happy-dancing in my house last night! :D