Judge Overturns California Gay Marriage Ban
by PubliusFrom AFP:
A federal judge overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage US media reported Wednesday, the latest twist in a legal saga which could have nationwide implications for the divisive social issue.
In a written opinion, Judge Vaughn Walker found in favor of rights activists who argued that a November 2008 referendum which barred gays and lesbians from tying the knot was discriminatory and therefore violated the US Constitution.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
596 Comments
I suppose this means we'll need to amend the Constitution if we want the public will to be respected.
Doubtful. Neither Congress nor a total of 34 state legislatures have the intestinal fortitude to counter the lobby. Once again, the will of the people has been subverted by judicial fiat.
Fortunately, this judge avoided allowing his own personal circumstances to influence his decision /sarc
Another f*&%ing activist person wearing a long, black, ugly dress!
BRAVO CALIFORNIA!
There's no constitutional right to marriage, a drivers license or healthcare. There is a constitutional right however to bear arms and offend liberals.
Well this one is not Sharia Law Compliant! Watch out for Kagan though!
And, lest we forget, it's all Bush's fault!!!
Here in CA, we expected this. The judge is openly g a y. And we expect the same from the 9th Circuit. Not the same from the Supremes. That court is going to be very busy in coming times, what with AZ, MO and now CA. All will converge in, oh, about, late 2012.
YOU'LL need to the ammend the Constitution? Admit you lost and go home. Are you guys going to throw a fit and look for excuses every time things don't go your way?
Isn't this the second time Californian's wishes on his issue have been usurped? California, YOO HOO
time to clean house. Get active, get rid of these foul judges who continue to rule against the PEOPLE.
We don't call them THE RULING CLASS for nutin'
WAKE UP AMERICA, WAKE UP ! ! !
I'm very happy for you and your boyfriend, Larry. Congrats.
Ever think the public might be wrong and needs to be lead by the hand? They are and they do, especially in this case. Court did the right thing. Prop 8 was discriminatory and backed up by a group of Mormon loonies.
Afterr this ridiculous decision, the last thing we need to do is rush to amend the constitution! The Tenth Amendment stands proud and tall already. We just need a judge who understands the constitution and has the cajones to refudiate those who would destroy traditional marriage!
I'd say don't forget the constitutional right to being dopey, too… but this site always seems to have that one covered.
Constitution was upheld. Nothing more nothing less
The constitution is not a rights granter. It is a federal government limiter. It has no business telling us who can marry and who can't.
Sorry to ruin your fantasy but I'm straight. I simply rejoice every time the right wing gets kicked in the ass. But hey don't let your inherent bigotry of people that are different from you stop you from making a snarky comment. But hey, here's one back at you: Don't lose heart perhaps one day you'll be able to marry your mother or sister hillbilly.
Jeeez….. Maybe after the vote you should have admitted you lost and gone home instead of throwing a fit and look(ing) for excuses every time things don't go your way?
Huh??
"Unconstitutional" … right. This sounds like another 14th Amendment nightmare.
“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Qur'an 8:12
This is news? The result of this show trial was pre-ordained the second this miscreant judge was named. Enough of life long tenure for judges. These bastards need to be answerable to the electorate.
The ruling class? Don't make me laugh. Stop being a dittohead for five seconds and use the brain God gave you.
What about if the people of CA vote dope in this November, will you stand for the right of the people to get high? Or are you ok with an activist judge overturning that one too?
CA is a liberal state. They are entitled to do what they want. If you don't like it move the &#*^% out
Sorry but that is the path to tyranny. When you assume the dumb serfs must be led by the hand then you fail as a liberal. Your statement is also Hobbesian in nature and Hobbes has been shown to be logically flawed.
People are not dumb serfs and when you start down the road of "they need to be dragged kicking and screaming (Bill Mahrer)" you invite the use of force to essentially apply your arbitrary set of special interest upon others.
I'm sure there exist muslims who ALSO believe people need to be "lead by the hand".
Your system is old-n-busted. Kings and queens in castles telling the dumb serfs how to live there lives and you nor anyone you know is qualified to perform such a task.
It was Ca….what did you expect….To the left if you can't win at the polls,or in the legislative branch find a activist judge..
Hey, I have a '73 Targa. Bright blue. Called Minerva.
"I'd say don't forget the constitutional right to being dopey, too… but this site always seems to have that one covered."
YOUR presence is proof of that.
The judge is correct, legally. I don't like it, but there it is.
The correct answer here is to get the government out of the business entirely. They don't have the authority to *license* me to marry. A license is nothing more than permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.
On another note — does this mean that common-law marriage now extends to same-sex couples in CA? This could be interesting to watch…
So if you want single payer why don't you move to the X number of countries that already have it?
No it was not. Show me where the government can regulate marriage in the constitution?
This one was openly discriminatory and based primarily on religious intolerance. The promise of this country is that people are allowed equal rights under the law and prop 8 violated the promise of that ideal. And let's be realistic I support pot rights so of course I would stand with the public. I don't support prop 8 so I'm with the court. See how easy that was?
im guessing overturning that would piss him off
"Are you guys going to throw a fit and look for excuses every time things don't go your way? "
That's what the homos in CA did.
Exactly! The people who are against this are the same people who would've been against equal rights, segregation, social security and women and black people voting…
They claim to stand for America's freedom but, really, they want the world back they way they thought it was in the good old days… even if it's just a conservative fantasy of a world that never really was.
Their old road is rapidly aging…
Actually, Prop 8 had more democrat blacks per capita in favor of it that mormons. Are you going to call them black loonies too, you POS bigoted ass?
You know that was a federal judge, don't you?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
See that part about Liberty? The government has no business being involved in marriage, period. The "public will" does not over-ride the rights of the individual – that is the entire point of our Republic, and what set it apart from the rest of the world. Without that protection, you're a PR nightmare away from drinking hemlock.
"But hey, here's one back at you: Don't lose heart perhaps one day you'll be able to marry your mother or sister hillbilly."
..says the bigot, who just accused someone else of bigotry.
But yet Conservatives want to reject the 14th and 17th ammendments because it suits them. Go figure.
Nice
He can't…
So you don't think the state can prohibit you from marrying your 12 year old brother?
This statement will not make me popular here but government should NOT be in the marriage business. If gov was not in the marriage business you could marry your coffee table for all anyone cares and nobody has to support your marriage.
Constitution says nothing about marriage, dummy.
With the bulk of health insurance costs born by employers.
Insults lacking no insight beyond a caps lock button…
Thanks for proving my point, as well, John.
Actually, yes, the constitution can be ammended. It has been done before, poopstain troll. Then we have more conservatives on the US supreme court than we have liberals. That means nothing is lost quite yet, you dimwitted troll.
Wow, you're really dumb. I won't even waste my time explaining why though.
"..says the bigot, who just accused someone else of bigotry."
Isn't that the way it always is?
"They are entitled to do what they want" so long as YOU agree with it, is what you mean.
Larry, it's "led," not "lead." Just a fine point on an otherwise flawed bit of logic. Or illogic.
It's going to be fun watching them try to pay for all the marriage benefits/tax breaks they'll have to give to every two or more people that claim marriage rights.
Yes, it does, and it will further bankrupt that state.
once again a liberal judge
OVER RULES the VOTE of the MAJORITY of the PEOPLE !
Well, you really are kind of dopey there, poopstain.
A 12-year-old does not share the same legal protections as an adult. There is an arbitrary, agreed-upon age of full legal rights in our society, and that is 18. If you want to marry your 18-year-old brother, and he's okay with it… It doesn't harm me in the least.
I see is is very easy to be a hypocrite.
Nah. Not even.
In other words, our masters, who call themselves our public servants, have told us "You all are too stupid to know what your doing". I am sorry but now the progressive/socialist not only ignore, or bend, the Constitution, but are making laws and ruling that represent the "Party" line. This is America, the government does not rule me, and god forbid if they keep on the path of installing minority opinion over Americans desires.
Why would that comment offend you? Do you think that being mistaken for a homosexual is an insult? Sounds a little bigoted if you ask me.
Gov't just has to enforce the contracts of marriage.
Gov't hasn't been doing a hot job of enforcement lately though, or I guess, more correctly, they've been selectively enforcing contracts to reward some and punish others.
Homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law. They do not deserve to co-opt the word marriage.
In some cases people really do need to be lead. Especially when it comes to national issues like these that most don't have the education or the intelligence to really under all the implications of. They are instead lead by primitive or religious bias which shouldnt make the rule of law in a sophisticated, modern society.
Oh? And what about this ruling was from the voters of California? NOTHING. so to be correct your statement should have been: "Bravo Judge Walker"…
Your liberal state voted for Prop 8, idiot poopstain.
Apparently not, as the will of the voters was pissed on by an activist masquerading as a judge.
LOL!
Barry & Larry, well, it rhymes…
Why? The public isnt always smart enough to make it's own decisions.
"Enforcing the contracts of marriage" is a civil matter, and should be resolved in civil court like any other breach of contract. You don't have to get approval on every other contract you enter into.
"Poopstain?" "Poopstain?"
Do your parents know you're using the computer?
Or that you're up past your bedtime on a school night?
The judge is incorrect, legally. And you don't need to like it. Marriage is not a guaranteed right for ANYONE, period. It is a governmental contract for the most part, with lots of financial benefits attached to it. The judge was just being a moron.
I want homosexuals to have equal treatment under the law, but the government has no business defining marriage. Remove the government as a marriage broker, call the legal contract a Civil Union, require all committed adult couples to have one if they want the legal bennies, and leave marriage to the separate religions.
GOOOO EARTHQUAKES!!!!
There no where in the constitution where it says that. That's why the gov need to get out of the marriage business. straight or g.a.y
Your right, California is a wonderful place for liberals to live. I just wish a few more from battle ground states would move there.
Here we go again, another judge that believes referendums mean nothing.
As a side note, why are so many queer folk named larry?
I'll agree with that, so then you agree that this ruling was unConstitutional.
Good point, judges should not be allowed to overturn referendums (period).
The government is in the marriage business for regulation purposes, to make sure people don't marry underage kids, direct-line ancestors, etc…
And on the subject of marriage licenses, the State enters into these 'contracts' in bad faith. They fail to disclose the jurisdiction being ceded to the State upon execution of the license – a license which grants statist agencies such as CPS and family courts the 'right' to stick the ex-husband with child support and alimony in arbitrary amounts, under force of law. The government has no business getting involved in family matters unless a crime has taken place.
Spoken like a true totalitarian elitist. Then again…. every time you open your trap you make one helluva' good case for that point.
Damn. You really do want us on the path to tyranny, don't you?
Actually this was voted DOWN by the people of California…. If they are entitled do " do what they want" you should be DECRYING this decision… <<listening to the crickets…>>
I'm sure you would have been fine with the Nuremberg Laws too John.
Sounds a little bigoted to me. The state hands out free condoms to 12 year olds in school, so it must recognize the right of a 12 year old to engage in casual sexual activity with whomever they choose. But they deny the same child the right to share their life with a single individual that they love and cherish.
You see the pandora's box that's been opened here? If the state can't define marriage because to do so discriminates against someone, then it shouldn't be allowed to define marriage at all.
These are the same liberals who voted for Prop 8 and passed it? Or do you really mean that liberal states rule by the dictates of government, not ever the will of the people?
Bush did put that douchebag on the bench. So in a way it is his fault.
Can i ask you a question? Why does it bother you so much if two consenting mature homosexual adults want to enter into marriage? Does it really erode your own marriage or the concept of marriage that much? Do you really spend that much time thinking about it? Just curious.
Ah, the poopstain larry is now an angry poopstain.
Stand back. The poopstain is about to blow.
I didn't say that it was a guaranteed right – I said that the judge was correct. Under the 14th Amendment, you cannot prohibit one segment of the population from doing something that the other segment is permitted to do.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Marriage is certainly a privilege, and is afforded to citizens of the US.
Just as government cannot advocate Christian symbology in the classroom but prohibit other religions, government may not permit traditional marriage contracts without making them available to all people. Passing a law that a man may do something that a woman may not is unconstitutional.
In both of these cases, the best possible solution is for government to stay as far away from the issue as possible. Dissolve governmental benefits to married couples, abolish marriage licenses, and let anyone who wants to apply for a certificate of civil union at the courthouse for purposes of inheritance and estate planning. It is the only equitable and just solution.
So then what makes you different than a Christian who believes EXACTLY the same thing… people need to be led cause they aren't doing what HE thinks they should be doing. Isn't that how the marriage laws got put into place to begin with… a special interest group thinking people were too dumb to know better and forced their special interest poop on them.
The dumb serfs need to be led is old-n-busted. Been there. Done that. It certainly is not progressive/new.
Shall I regale you with the massive number of groups out there who all think you're too stupid or programmed and require their forceful leadership?
What makes your arbitrary pile of special interest poop any different than anyone else's?
Does it enter that small mind of yours that the very tool you use to impose your special interest upon others is the exact tool you are crabbing about to begin with?
You're not qualified to "lead". Get over it. We wasted 1000s of years and millions of lives proving that system does NOT work. Old-n-busted.
Fundamentally, I agree. A committed couple has the right to expect equal treatment under the law. This is why we have Civil Unions. Government should stop calling what it does "marriage" and link the legal benefits they accord to adult couples to Civil Unions. If you want those legal bennies, you apply for one. If you want to be married, you go to a religion. A couple could have either, neither, or both and religious freedom would not be at risk of violation.
Ah yes, the right's own version of political correctness that says you have to be tolerant of the intolerant. Someone was saying something about hypocrisy?
I agree, and that's been my position all along – it should not be allowed to define marriage at all. Civil unions for the purposes of estate planning and inheritance, and that's it.
No need to reject the 14th amendment. It is VERY clear – children born of tourists and illegals are NOT citizens!!!!! We just need the government to ABIDE and UPHOLD this amendment.
Not angry… underwhelmed and unimpressed.
But, again, thanks for proving my point.
Said the Christian, The communist, the imperialist, the radical islamist…. yeah your old news.
You must be logged in to post a comment.