Prop 8 Unconstitutional?

According to the Federal District judge, Vaughn Walker, there is not even a rational basis for Prop 8, which is patent absurdity.



How did he come to this conclusion? I haven't read all 138 pages, but I read one page that told me all I needed to know--this webpage:



http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker



Turns out the judge is gay. How was this guy not recused/disqualified?



But it's okay--the gay politicians say his gayness won't affect his decision.

not sure what an article about an Edward DuMont has to do with Vaughn Walker the Prop 8 judge. Sorry if I missed the connection.



As for his Honor's gay-ness: I agree that it's an advantage to the pro-traditional marriage side and not a detriment because no matter what he ruled, it was a lose-lose situation for him.



This article is actually decent if you can stand the first few VERY annoying paragraphs:



http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/the-prop-8-judge-may-be-gay-does-it-matter/



Appeal at this point will look something like: He's serving his own.

CougarClaw wrote:
not sure what an article about an Edward DuMont has to do with Vaughn Walker the Prop 8 judge. Sorry if I missed the connection.



As for his Honor's gay-ness: I agree that it's an advantage to the pro-traditional marriage side and not a detriment because no matter what he ruled, it was a lose-lose situation for him.



This article is actually decent if you can stand the first few VERY annoying paragraphs:



http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/the-prop-8-judge-may-be-gay-does-it-matter/



Appeal at this point will look something like: He's serving his own.

I fixed the link to a more direct story.

But that's not what gets me.



[crazyman's rant] This was a DEMOCRATICALLY ENACTED will by a majority of MILLIONS of people. How one man can feel that his "enlightened" view is more important than the will of MILLIONS of people is beyond me. I really don't even understand why this was allowed at all, a federal judge's task is to enforce the Constitution. That is his boss. That is his measuring stick. That is his Ultimate. This was a change to HIS BOSS and he decided he didn't like it. This was not a law. This was a Constitutional ammendment that PASSED.



This wasn't a check on the legislature, this wasn't a check on the executive branch, this was a check on democracy. The people spoke, and they were struck down. I am absolutely incensed. Lawyers out there feel free to correct me and help me understand because this flies in the face of everything I understand about our government.



In full-disclosure I supported Prop 8, but I believe I would be just as angry had the reverse been true. My informed, planned, and deliberate vote in this Republic officially meant nothing. Tell me how a Constitutional Ammendment can be struck down by a judicial ruling and I'll sell you some non-crooked Washington Politicians. In related news, I'm going to seceede from the union and stop paying my taxes. If THE LAW of the land is no longer valid, what the hell is it all for? Californians have found away around obeying the law: anarchy!

Thought I was done.... guess I"m not .



The Bill of Rights was passed after the Federal Constitution was set up. So Hypothetically , what if one of the Supreme Court members didn't like this so-called "Freedom of the Press" or was a life-long Catholic who wanted more affiliation with Rome and this "freedom of religion" thing was to heretical for him.



Could They have struck down the Bill of Rights? SURE! Why not! Except I suppose that THAT kind of ammendment was a "good one" and this is a "bad one" so it's different. Or that was a Federal ammendment, this one is a state. so it's "different".



While we're at it. Install a dictator and ask Hugo Chavez if he's available. What's the point of a Constituion if we're not going to follow it.[/crazyman's rant]

The majority isn't always correct (see slavery), but what the judge cited is bogus, because the proposition did not state that homosexuals could not marry, it just protected the definition of what marriage is: the union of a man and a woman. A gay man and a lesbian can marry each other all day. Also, I disagree with the continuing notion that a lifestyle choice is the same as race, gender, etc.

It's because the constitution is outdated and we need to correct it. At least that is what some recent court nominees have said.



Anyways let gays get together but don't call it marriage. Call it something else. What I don't know.

Get the State out of the marriage business. Leave that to Church. Let the State handle civil unions for tax purposes, medical benefits/rights, etc. People will have to go to the court house before/after their wedding to have their union recognized by the State for the above purposes.

I thought some may be interested in this talk given at the J Reuben Clark Law Society back in February. Prop 8 is one of many things that is part of a very deliberate attempt to take away one of our very first rights given in the US, Freedom of Religion.

scott715 wrote:

Anyways let gays get together but don't call it marriage. Call it something else. What I don't know.

They already have this in california. It's called Civil Unions. And to my knowledge its indistinguishable from marriage in the eyes of the state.



But that's not enough.



Ironic that this "Civil Rights" movement is not satisfied with a "Civil Union" solution. No, now they need marriage too. Now They have to go after their historic oppressors: Religion and some of its most basic principles and institutions.



Make no mistake, religion is under direct attack under a brilliantly insidious and false guise of civil rights.

CougarClaw wrote:

Make no mistake, religion is under direct attack under a brilliantly insidious and false guise of civil rights.

Very well said. From the inception of "political correctness," I have equated it with moral incorrectness. I am amazed at the number of active LDS people with a gay family member, who support gay marriage (the arm of flesh) over the Lord's commandments. We have a gay son who is VERY active in the gay pride movement. We accept him for who he is, and have his partner with him at all family functions. We do not, however condone his lifestyle or support his liberal causes over the church's position and the Lord's clear stance on the issue. (watch how much debate this post sparks)

Well said Big Blue. I too have been shocked at the number of LDS who support gay rights because a family member has chosen that lifestyle. Many seem to believe that sin is wrong until a loved one falls victim, then it becomes okay. I think the old saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" applies here. It always takes courage to stand for what you know to be right.



Elder Oaks gave a great talk last year in General Conference called "Love and Law". It addresses these issues.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-9,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was very saddened by the decision, but it's long from being over, legally at least. I'd suspect that the Ninth Circuit will affirm, but here is the good news: guess which circuit is the most overruled? The Ninth Circuit. It will probably come down to swing vote Kennedy. To respond to a few posts: when it comes to the United States Constitution, it does not matter if a majority of voters enacted a state law or constitutional provision in place, if the matter violates the federal constitution, it trumps whatever state law or constitutional provision is in place. As to the fact that Judge Walker is gay, that argument makes about as much difference to me as if, hypothetically, the law had been upheld by a heterosexual judge and a gay rights group had argued that of course the judge upheld it, he's not gay. In the end, whether the Courts get ir right or not, the truth of the importance of marriage and familiies, which our prophets have taught us and we proclaim to the world will still be THE TRUTH and will not fail us. Court fail us all the time. So do legislatures and politicians and the Pac 10 ;) but the Lord's prophet will not and so this was a bad day in the manmade world of laws and court opinions but we can keep marching on eh?