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.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Hooray!

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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!

[sdelmonte]

Snap!

[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..

[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.

[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.

[lariss.livejournal.com]

I admire your consistent libertarian activism on this very liberal page.
That being said, two quotes (or paraphrases as the case may be):

1) I disagree with all you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

and

2) I like paying taxes. They buy me civilization.

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]

Damn tootin.

There are lots of people who would enter into this kind of contract as friends, simply to better survive our hard, cruel society.

[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.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the state has an interest in law enforcement and helping everyone get along. If the state didn't recognize marriage, how could it enforce divorce settlements or spousal privilege? If two people could get married and divorced in an instant without state acknowledgment then criminals can claim to be married for the express purpose of avoiding having to give testimony against each other. And of course you can't get rid of spousal privilege, a married couple should be able to share things. That's what helps make a healthy marriage. Not to mention marriages of convenience used to bypass the laws.

Reducing the rights of the state to govern takes us one step closer to and anarchy of city-state "counties" and away from actual nationhood with real civilization. But then that's exactly what some people want.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

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

YAY!

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

[alverant.livejournal.com]

So you're saying a gay judge can't be unbiased in this decision and that they can't judge a case by its merits? Then why should a straight judge, or straight voters for that matter, be considered unbiased? The judge's ruling is in line with the Constitution and the voters can't just take that away. We do live in a nation with the promise of consistent laws for everyone; not just those who the voters "allow" to have rights.

The fact is there is not one legal or logical reason to deny equal marriage.