|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Judge Overturns California's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

A California judge overturned California's Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage on August 4, 2010.

< read all 7 reviews

A Quick Tip by Fionnchu

  • Aug 9, 2010
  • by
Interesting take on how Jehovah's Witnesses ruling in 1943 protecting minority freedoms influenced Judge Walker's overturning of the Prop 8 passage: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2...-06-engardio05_ST_N.htm
Share  
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Was this helpful?
0
Post a Comment
August 13, 2010
Is the overturn of Prop 8 constitutional? James Taranto at WSJ.com sums up: The latest development in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the California case in which a federal judge found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, should be troubling to those on both sides of the legal and policy debate. As the Chicago Tribune reports, it is possible that Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling will not be reviewed by a higher court: The defendants in that case were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, but they declined to defend the law.

As the losing parties, they have authority to appeal Walker's ruling. But both Brown and Schwarzenegger hailed Walker's decision and said they would not appeal."The governor supports the judge's ruling," spokesman Aaron McLear said Thursday.A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal but may lack legal standing to do so.To have standing in federal court, a party must show that it has suffered an actual injury, and Walker said no evidence suggests that the campaign would meet that test. . .

.If higher courts agree with Walker on the lack of standing, they would make no decision on the merits of the issue.The result of such an outcome would be that same-sex marriage would be a federal constitutional right only in California, until a court somewhere else took up the question. That seems an especially antidemocratic result given that a majority of Californians voted to abolish same-sex marriage less than two years ago, after the California Supreme Court held it to be a state constitutional right. Those who take the plaintiffs' side of the case would respond by pointing out that voters, like legislators, may not pass unconstitutional laws.

In their view, which Judge Walker has now accepted, the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. But if Walker's ruling stands without appeal, the constitutional question will remain unresolved, with other states free to define marriage as in the past. It may be that Schwarzenegger, Brown and Walker are following a strategy: Rather than risk being overturned by the Supreme Court, stop the legal process prematurely, so that when the high court finally does take up the question in a case from elsewhere, it will have to take account of the fact that same-sex marriage is a reality in California.

Our own view is that this matter would be better left to voters and legislators--though enough state courts have already seen things differently that we're probably whistling past the graveyard. As we noted last week, we also think that the current Supreme Court would likely uphold Walker's ruling and establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Such an outcome would be better--would seem more legitimate--if delivered straight than via a gaming of the appeals process." WSJ.com, 8-13-10.
 
1
More Judge Overturns California's B... reviews
review by . August 05, 2010
Does this decision to block Prop 8 overturn a majority of voters? Yes, 52.3%. But, whatever one's leanings from ballot to ballot, one must remember: we Californian voters are unpredictable: 187 (stopping illegal immigrants from government services) and 227 (overturning supposedly bilingual education) also were fought by liberal courts, if predictably, along with a later voter-backed ban on race-biased state hiring and college admissions. 187 was blocked by progressive courts, the other two contentious …
Quick Tip by . August 04, 2010
Yet another case of a judge overturning the will of the people and advancing the progressive agenda. This was to be expected and the people will respond in kind in November.
Quick Tip by . August 05, 2010
It's not the end of the fight, but it's definitely a good start. +1 for the LGBT movement & human rights.
Quick Tip by . August 04, 2010
I'm sure this isn't the end of this fight - but SO glad to see some progress made to end the H8!!! Yay!
Quick Tip by . August 09, 2010
Anyone voting this one down can go take a long walk off a short pier.
Quick Tip by . August 04, 2010
This is awesome, I hope it sticks. Was actually surprised it passed the first time
About the reviewer
John L. Murphy ()
Ranked #48
Medievalist turned humanities professor; unrepentant but not unskeptical Fenian; overconfident accumulator of books & music; overcurious seeker of trivia, quadrivia, esoterica.      … more
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
Fionnchu
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this topic

Wiki

Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In the Strauss v. Horton case, the court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the Grandfather clause principle). The ruling was overturned by a lawsuit in federal courts on August 4, 2010. The decision will likely be appealed.
view wiki

Tags

Politics, Human Sexuality, Human Rights, Prop 8, California Laws

Details

© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists