Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

District Judge Finds Proposition 8 Unconstitutional: Opinion Analysis

61 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The anticipated Proposition 8 opinion has just been issued: Judge Vaughn Walker has concluded that Proposition 8 as enacted is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Supporters of Proposition 8 reportedly filed a motion to stay the Judge's ruling the evening before it was issued. Our recap of the trial, linking to daily posts, is here.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/fourteenth_amendment/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anticipated Proposition 8 opinion has just been issued: Judge Vaughn Walker has concluded that Proposition 8 as enacted is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Supporters of Proposition 8 reportedly filed a motion to stay the Judge's ruling the evening before it was issued. Our recap of the trial, linking to daily posts, is here.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/fourteenth_amendment/

Judicial activism at its best. :thumbs:

Just remember though on this argument before you bash me. I'm all for equal rights for all couples. However, this is absurd as far as the law is concerned.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you condone mob rule?

Not at all. However this is not a case of discrimination. Marriage is a contract (as I explained in another thread earlier) between two people in government. Government and the people can set the stipulations of said contract, so long as they do not discriminate against a particular demographic. Gay people are far from a demographic and under the current law of marriage, have the same rights as anyone else. If they choose to marry a woman as a gay man they can. A gay woman can marry a straight man, or a gay man for that matter. It's a contract stipulation, it's not a discriminatory act.

Now with that being said, most people who fight against the marriage for gay couples are right-wing religious nuts, or people who just do not understand homosexuality and are scared/don't like the idea.

Hell, with the marriage tax penalty coming back, everyone should be all for gay couples getting married! :lol:


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. However this is not a case of discrimination. Marriage is a contract (as I explained in another thread earlier) between two people in government. Government and the people can set the stipulations of said contract, so long as they do not discriminate against a particular demographic. Gay people are far from a demographic and under the current law of marriage, have the same rights as anyone else. If they choose to marry a woman as a gay man they can. A gay woman can marry a straight man, or a gay man for that matter. It's a contract stipulation, it's not a discriminatory act.

Now with that being said, most people who fight against the marriage for gay couples are right-wing religious nuts, or people who just do not understand homosexuality and are scared/don't like the idea.

Hell, with the marriage tax penalty coming back, everyone should be all for gay couples getting married! :lol:

What a silly argument. That's like saying that a state law can forbid interracial couples from marrying as long as the uniformly enforce it. In Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a silly argument. That's like saying that a state law can forbid interracial couples from marrying as long as the uniformly enforce it. In Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.

Not quite. Interracial couples consist of demographics and men and women, not the same thing.

Loving v. Virginia had a judge saying they felt it was a right. There is no "right" to marriage. Just because a judge says so, doesn't make it so. Judges are not legislators, and marriage is not a Federal issue to begin with. Though they tried to make it one with DOMA.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt this ruling will be contested all the way up to the SCotUS where it will be overturned.


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul thinks the courts are nearly always wrong and he is always right.

So you basically support a system where the country is not run by the people and their elected representative leaders - a democracy. Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots. Basically the judiciaries are the modern day Kings and Queens for America. Why even vote on anything? Save the hassle and just allow the courts to decide everything.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you basically support a system where the country is not run by the people and their elected representative leaders - a democracy. Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots. Basically the judiciaries are the modern day Kings and Queens for America. Why even vote on anything? Save the hassle and just allow the courts to decide everything.

Actually BY, the courts interpret vague areas of laws, or determine if they are legal at all. I am not for referendums every time there is a controvercial topic. What is right isn't necessarily what is most popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you basically support a system where the country is not run by the people and their elected representative leaders - a democracy. Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots. Basically the judiciaries are the modern day Kings and Queens for America. Why even vote on anything? Save the hassle and just allow the courts to decide everything.

We're a republic, not a true democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. Interracial couples consist of demographics and men and women, not the same thing.

Loving v. Virginia had a judge saying they felt it was a right. There is no "right" to marriage. Just because a judge says so, doesn't make it so. Judges are not legislators, and marriage is not a Federal issue to begin with. Though they tried to make it one with DOMA.

What? The fundamental principle is that if two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized by the government, then such a right applies to everyone, not just a man and woman pair. And obviously, that's the legal opinion of the judge who has a lot more extensive knowledge about constitutional law than you can ever pretend to have.

Edited by El Buscador

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×