District Judge Finds Proposition 8 Unconstitutional: Opinion Analysis

[Heracles 417]

Bullsh!t. Most developed countries have adopted their constitutions after the United States, to protect the rights of the few, from the will of the many. Maybe you would like to live in a true democracy where the majority can set forth laws regardless of whether those laws inhibits the rights of others, but not me. That's what makes this country great.

Yes, rather than reinventing the wheel, smart countries tend to look at others and learn from them. That said, they had a few hundred years to see what works and what did not when forming their own. Honda and Toyota initially modeled their vehicles from Ford but are little alike now. That's really the difference right there, other countries have amended and adapted their Constitution to reflect the times they live in. They don't assume the founders had some crystal ball, let alone all of the answers.

These democracies vote on laws that advances their country, furthermore, deal with the situation and challenges at hand. Had the United States lead in any dimension relating to life, freedom or quality, I would accept your stance. Actually, you are staring to sound a lot like the pro-gun advocates, where you refuse to accept logic and simply stick by your ideological views; with a I am right and the world is essentially wrong attitude. They similarly believe the Constitutionally granted right to own infinite semi-automatics and ak457's, is "what makes this country great".

[Heracles 417]

What is right isn't necessarily what is popular. If you had polled americans in 1964 regarding the civil rights bill, there was more support against it than for it. Do you think it's right to deny people fundamental rights because they dont' like them or what they do?

In this day an age, people would naturally get these rights and equality. It's basically become a fundamental aspect of a civilized society.

You actually prove the point that had the laws not been amended or new bills introduced, it would have been business as usual. It was the government that introduced these civil rights bill, to protect the people; which is where the ultimate decisions should be made. Crime goes unabated here because any realistic proactive measure, would surely be unconstitutional.

I think you guys and I are arguing different issues here. You guys are talking about prop style legislation, which I myself am not familiar with. I've never seen a prop on any Australian ballot paper actually. Props have their pros and cons. Cons being, regardless of how desperately a state needs tax increase, naturally most people are going to vote any prop to increase them down.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't switch anything.

Marriage is a contract. A state contract at that. Not a federal contract. There is nothing constitutional about marriage.

If you want there to be, then so be it, and make it so by amending the constitution or changing federal law.

Marriage is a civil right. You want implicit wording in the Constitution before you'll recognize that right and that's why you can't wrap your head around this ruling.

[mawilson 2,133]

Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots.

In most states judges are elected, not appointed.

For example, New York judicial elections, 2010

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Marriage is a civil right. You want implicit wording in the Constitution before you'll recognize that right and that's why you can't wrap your head around this ruling.

There is no "right" to marriage. Stop saying/acting like their is. It's a contract. Nothing more, nothing less.

[The_Dude 1,142]

In most states judges are elected, not appointed.

For example, New York judicial elections, 2010

Those are local criminal and civil judges. Federal, appelate, and supreme court judges are appointed.

[Nikita2Charles 31]

This is far from Over

The supreme court is very conservative activist with the current presentation of the Justices on board, I won't be supprised if it's overturned by the supreme court, the past few years it's been totally hard liner, whether it's diminishing the Miranda right, Corporation should be treated as individual( I wish everybody were all millionaires and can afford to buy the elections through various Lobbyist ( see california crisis, a law proposal by a Lobbyist has a 61% chance to become law, but a proposal started by a congressman only has 38% of making it into Law)

Aye on the former but I wouldn't be so sure on the latter.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Nikita2Charles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is no "right" to marriage. Stop saying/acting like their is. It's a contract. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to think your opinion about it is as equally valid as the highest court in the land, not to mention that no lower court has ever challenged it. Then you dismiss such legal opinion as 'stupid.' You seem to know better than all those judges from past and present that have considered this matter.

Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You seem to think your opinion about it is as equally valid as the highest court in the land, not to mention that no lower court has ever challenged it. Then you dismiss such legal opinion as 'stupid.' You seem to know better than all those judges from past and present that have considered this matter.

The 'opinion' of an individual on the court, does not make something the law of the land. They make think in their heads it's a right, but it doesn't make it law. With your logic, a justice could give the opinion that beating your children is a right, so therefore it's the law of the land.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh and for the record on this decision, this judge is OPENLY GAY....

He should have excused himself from this case IMMEDIATELY.

[Heracles 417]

Oh and for the record on this decision, this judge is OPENLY GAY....

He should have excused himself from this case IMMEDIATELY.

Thanks for illustrating that judges vote on circumstances and ideological stances rather than logic. Hence, why they're not commander and chief of a state or entire country elsewhere.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Yes, rather than reinventing the wheel, smart countries tend to look at others and learn from them. That said, they had a few hundred years to see what works and what did not when forming their own. Honda and Toyota initially modeled their vehicles from Ford but are little alike now. That's really the difference right there, other countries have amended and adapted their Constitution to reflect the times they live in. They don't assume the founders had some crystal ball, let alone all of the answers.

These democracies vote on laws that advances their country, furthermore, deal with the situation and challenges at hand. Had the United States lead in any dimension relating to life, freedom or quality, I would accept your stance. Actually, you are staring to sound a lot like the pro-gun advocates, where you refuse to accept logic and simply stick by your ideological views; with a I am right and the world is essentially wrong attitude. They similarly believe the Constitutionally granted right to own infinite semi-automatics and ak457's, is "what makes this country great".

We are a republic!

[Heracles 417]

We are a republic!

So the leaders should vote then. Republic does not mean ruled by judges now does it? Bow down to the judge you peasant.

Funny though, I thought you guys are all about freedom. The purest of freedom is a democracy, where you have a direct voice. A republic means you are at the mercy of others.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The 'opinion' of an individual on the court, does not make something the law of the land. They make think in their heads it's a right, but it doesn't make it law. With your logic, a justice could give the opinion that beating your children is a right, so therefore it's the law of the land.

Oh brother.... When a District Court Judge as in this case makes a ruling, he explains the reasoning of that ruling and in this case he stated clearly that the courts have long established marriage as a civil right. In Loving v. Virginia, it was explained in the ruling why the court ruled laws prohibiting interracial marriages were unconstitutional, stating that marriage is a fundamental civil right. I even posted the logic behind why the courts have arrived at that and you continue to believe you are right and they are wrong. That you somehow know better than they do. Trying to argue with you over constitutional law is futile because you refuse recognize or even acknowledge the wisdom of the courts.

[Justine+David 218]

Thoroughly happy with the ruling