... it's just been found to be unconstitutional and its enforcement is forbidden.

The news made me smile... big time - and it's about time, too


See here

That is fantastic!

YaY!
Time to Dance!

Rumor has it the fanatical right wing fear mongers have already filed petition for a stay of enforcement of Judge Walker's decision. The official language of the ruling, unofficially (Judge Walker's decision is due for release tomorrow) ...



http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/04 ... itutional/

It was only a matter of time. I had faith that justice would ultimately prevail.

-- Nephele

Agreed.

Yet no matter how much faith I have that justice will eventually prevail, that doesn't relieve the pain and suffering gay and lesbian couples endure when they are denied the multitude of rights, responsibilities and protections afforded the hetreocentric majority by way of marriage.

-- Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:35 pm --



You may have misunderstood. This is not the end of this battle. The fanatical right wing Christians have already filed a motion to stay Judge Walker's decision pending appeal (placing it on hold), which means the case will now go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and from there will probably end up being heard by the SCOTUS. This is only a first step, but a very important one, nonetheless.

Both sides have long since said that each plans to appeal should the other win. This will go to the 9th, the question is whether SCOTUS will hear it.

If it only goes as high as the 9th I think the odds look good that 8 will stay struck down [Walker was a Reagan appointment for crying out loud]. But if it goes before the SCOTUS it's really anyone's guess what will happen, particularly with those two Bush appointees.

How can prop 8 be Unconstitutional? When in fact marriage was made to protect children and keep families together since the Pagan world?
On another note:
I must say... Religious endevours* should be made seperate from Political edevours* within reason.

The American concept of marriage, the version the law cares about, was not created for any such reason. It was created by local & state governments that wanted more control over their citizens lives, and figured one way they could do just that was to establish a system under which people need a "marriage certificate." Make no mistake, it IS about control. Anytime a government uses "certificates" or "licenses" for certain rights or privileges, they're restricting access.

To get a marriage certificate couples have to jump through certain hoops, and follow whatever strange rules the government in question had regarding marriage. It's a mixture of power-hungry bureaucrats, revenue creation, social engineering, among other things. I.e. the selling of these certificates is used to raise money for the government, it is not free. In some states to get one you have to get your blood tested for certain stds. At one point in time you could not be an interracial couple. Etc. The process of joining a couple with a legal marriage isn't just a matter of tax breaks, in certain aspects it basically combines couples into one legal entity insofar as certain legal matters are concerned. One of the reasons why divorce can be so messy is because the state then has to go in and find a way to separate a legal entity that has merged two separate individuals into one [this is particularly true in talking about assets: like money, real estate].

Interracial marriage is probably the closest parallel we have to the gay marriage question. One could argue that interracial prohibitions do not trample over peoples' rights since everyone has the same right to marry someone of the same "race."

But that omits certain legal realities. The government is required to protect its citizens equally [14th amendment]. That's why the SCOTUS struck down those marriage laws regarding interracial couples. The Warren court ruled that the government can NOT go around making these anti-miscegenation laws. See Loving v Virginia

You post is a very interesting one, and it contains much truth, but it seems to ignore one simple truth, people want to marry one another. I think Mildred Loving who, along with her husband, was plaintiff in Loving v. Virginia, said it best in her last public statement before her death in 2008. Here is Mildred Loving's last official statement in support of marriage for gays and lesbians. I think they bear repeating concerning the current topic, for the benefit of those who may not be familiar.

Mildred said she considered her marriage and the court decision to be God's work. She supported everyone's right to marry whoever he or she wished, and expressed support for same-sex marriage. In 1965, when the case was pending, she told the Washington Evening Star, "We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants." On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision.

Her statement concluded:


Thank you, Mrs. Loving. I think that about sums it up.

Amen to that!

From my understanding, it won't be official until there is a Supreme Court ruling.

Judge Walker's decision will be effect as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds it, which in all likelihood they'll do. Then the U.S. Supreme Court could either decide to hear it or not. They could just let the lower court decision stand.

Is it legal for a single judge to override the people's vote?

Yep! Look what happened in 2000...