If the nation goes as Cali goes in this case, meaning that they won't allow a vote to deny a right to a minority group that is provided to a majority group, then I think we're ok. Lets not lose track of the fact in this discussion that the "will of people" was discrimination. Six years ago, when my native land of Massachusetts approved gay marriage, I would have hoped that the rest of the nation would have caught up by now. Its going slow, but this case shows its getting there. I'm still waiting for a legally valid case against gay marriage and, from what I'm reading, so was the judge in this case.
This makes no sense. If almost everyone feels a certain way, wouldn't that be "the will of the people"? I think the 2 cases represent different wills. The Arizona law is favored by a majority of Americans, while the California law is favored by a majority of bigots, but not a majority of Americans.
A 3rd battle of "wills" is moving forward, with Virginia winning a court decision to proceed suing to end the mandatory requirement to purchase health care insurance from private industry.
Here is James Tarantino's take. He thinks that the overturning of Prop 8 will lead to nationwide gay marriage http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5411222207921744.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
bigots, how? I still don't personally see how people would think that a heterosexual couple is EXACTLY THE SAME as a homosexual one. There is a difference, biologically. maybe not socially or "lookin' at love" or whatever, but there is a difference. As far as "rights" are concerned, as far as California is concerned the rights of a civil union/domestic partnership = that of a married couple. Again with the misinformation and hyperbole which permeate the discussion. The only thing in this debate is the semantic definition of "marriage". Honestly, I post my opinions on this matter just to clear up the mistruths spewed forth by the "No on H8" types out there. They are disgusting manipulators of truth.
Yes. Which is why I said that it's the will of the people to have checks on the will of the people. We, as a society, want courts to prevent majority votes from enacting unconstitutional discrimination. We've purposely tied our own hands in certain ways, which I think is wise.
Agreed. Only a bigot would object to gay marriage in California since it is only a semantic difference.
Majority votes are rarely representative of the majority will of the people, since the majority of the people do not vote. Take Chris Dudley for instance.
I'm with the founding fathers on this one: I don't trust the people to make rational decisions on which direction the country should go. They're too stupid.
Mook, I did not wish to reply to the article you linked until I had read Judge Walker's decision in its entirely (which the writer of the article admits not having done). Now, I can say why I think the article is wrong. Judge Walker explains early on that there were diagreements between the two sides as to the facts. Therefore it was appropriate that the majority of the decision focus on establishing facts. There is a difference between being thorough and throwing "everything but the kitchen sink" at someone/thing. The factual review was and needed to be thorough. You know, in an election campaign, a person/group can say anything they choose, pretty much. But in a court of law they have to provide evidence. The trial showed that the supporters of Prop 8 could not provide any evidence for any of their claims. In nonjudicial language, their entire campaign was based on lie after lie. Not one single thing they said publicly during the campaign or at trial in support of Prop 8 could be verified. That's important to establish because to single out one group for discriminatory treatment requires compelling evidence of an overriding state interest in such treatment. They had none. Also, what I did not know until last week (I'm a biologist, not a lawyer) is that legal ruling consist of "finding of fact" and "finding of law". On appeal, finding of fact is very rarely challenged, only if it can be shown to be really egregiously wrong. So by being thorough in his finding of fact, Judge Walker was making it more difficult for his decision to be overturned. (Not surprisingly the pro-Prop 8 supporters are basing their appeal not on what they said in the campaign, not on what they said at trial, but on yet another issue, that courts should not overturn a majority vote, even though there is ample precedent for such overturns; and the decision addresses this issue as well.) Finally, as for the judge trying to write a historic opinion, like it or not, he was. This was the first time a Federal court has ruled on the issue of marriage equality so it was going to be a historic opinion regardless. I thank you and the writer of the article for maintaining civil discourse. A welcome relief these days (witness the "Michelle Antoinette" and other vulgar threads mindlessly and endlessly regurgitating the spewing of AM scream radio).
I don't understand why we would have any restrictions on "marriage" at all. Seems to me that if people want to enter into a financial agreement to join their property together, they should be permitted to.
Which many states do not offer at the same level of rights and privilages as a "marriage", if at all. If that were not the case, this would not be an issue.
Sure it would. In California they are the same. And we still have this huge debate about simple semantics.
