Prop 8 Overturned!

California's Proposition 8 has been overturned!

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html

This afternoon U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in the case brought before him by lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, which argued that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative denying marriage rights to same-sex couples in California was unconstitutional.

Leslie,

Yes, this is great news! But I fear that we haven't heard the final word.

Chris

Baby steps! I think eventually someone has to take this to the Supreme Court, like they did with Loving vs Virginia. Then we can stop this silly nonsense and allow people to marry whomever they wish.

What is it like in other countries? I believe the UK has civil unions, correct?

Woohoo!!!

Yes we do Leslie, some civil and some in Churches.

P
BTW ,thanks for trying to help re Ali. I have given up on him. They are going in the bin.

I was going to post and congratulate Richard for this step. Maybe it'll lead the way for Milo to be able to enter the country with her wife without getting harrassed too. Not all at once, of course, but in time.

I think we are probably better off going to a system like Brazil has. No one but the bureau in charge of marriages has the authority to legally marry someone. People get their legal ceremony at that bureau and then, if they wish, have a religious ceremony separately. Many people don't bother to get legally married because there are no tax benefits or other ways that it does any good to be legally married, as long as you have a will that recognizes your spouse. So my brother's parents-in-law are not legally married. My brother is because he needed that in order to apply for a permanent residency visa to Brazil and to help his wife someday get a tourist visa to the U.S. On the other hand, maybe if she weren't married to an American, they would have let her visit earlier. They rejected her tourist visa because she might stay here permanently, illegally, once she got here. How stupid is that, since she could just apply for a green card if she wanted to live here!

But anyway, I think that is the direction the government probably should go. Religious institutions should be free to recognize whatever they want to recognize as marriages within their institutions, but that shouldn't translate to what the government will recognize.

This is nothing and has been nothing in the civil marriage laws to control the religious institutions in the USA.

In my life the example is the Roman Catholic Church. When my daughter's mother and I sought to dissolve our marital bounds, the question arose of civil divorce or civil annulment. Our Bishop told us it would make no differrence whatsoever when our religious case went to the tribunal. We got a civil divorce (that was not so civil - bad pun) and then went ot the Church for judgement. Our sacramental marriage was annulled without bastardizing our child. I have always thought THAT was a leap of faith - but I'll take it.

In law, marriage is a civil agreement between two qualified adults to be married, to form a family, mutual support - all of marriage.

In the Roman Catholic Church and many other faith communities, marriage is the sacramental union of two persons. Sacramental = the Grace of God Almighty is bestowed upon the couple to grant them grace to do that which must be done within a lifetime of marital vows. A huge difference between civil and faithful marriage.

Judge Vaughn Walker's decision and order is worth a read. He articulates some great American concepts. And gives judicial weight to some great scientific concepts.

1. There is absolutely NO evidence that children do better if reared by a parent of the same genetic code. Children raised by birth parents, adoptive parents, children of test tube / surrogate birth, step parents, grandparents - there is absolutely NO discernable difference in the successful outcome of child rearing based on genetic links to the parents. Beinga good parent is NOT about genetic links but about proper nurture and rearing.

2. Same sex marriage has measurable and identibly benefits to the State of California and the cities within the State.

3. There is absolutely NO evidence that sexual orientation is a choice. Sexual orientation - gay, straight, bi - is an instrinsic part of a personality. Attempts to change one's sexual orientation actually harm people.

4. Marriage is NOT about children. The elderly, the barren are allowed to marry. The State does NOT require any proof of fertility prior to issuing marriage license. Marriage is about the formation of families and households.

5. The "Yes on 8" campaign relied on 20th century discriminatory fears and stereotypes, that have been proven invalid, to whip up fear and win an election. You non-Californians did not get to see all the "what about our children" ads they ran on TV. Every campaign piece was pushing the idea that every gay or lesbian is a threat to YOUR CHILDREN!

6. Once science weighs in, the ONLY possible reason left for a ban a same sex unions was a moral concept that gay and lesbian families are inferior to straight families. Such is not the case, so the ban fails Constitutional muster.

7. Same sex marriage is NOT a new right - it is a group of people who have historically been the object of discrimination being denied a human right that already exists. It is all about discrimination, not creating new rights.

8. (Best of All) in the USA it is inappropriate and not to be allowed for ANY election to be held on basic human rights. Here we are all equal under the law.

The judge said NOTHING about religious belief except to say that civil law cannot be founded SOLELY on moral beliefs. There has to be a legitimate State interest in ANY law ... even laws passed by initiative of the voters acting as the legislature.

the decision itself is worthy of a read. It is all over the Internet and says a lot about who we are as Americans.

Bravo...maybe we can get married again on a beach in Cali.

Does this mean that anyone that believes that marriage between a man and a woman is bad now...because of a judge?

Does it make a girl "marriage to another girl" improper and unlegal if now she engages in a relationship between herself and a man"

Can you have a marriage and muliple "unions?"

There's no problem IMO of relations if a party choses between sexes, but I think there is a distinction in marriage--only between a man and a woman.

Legal rights can be assigned to same-sex couples, IMO....along with traditional marriages. Same legal tax, guardian/custodial, divorce, etc.

In California, opposite sex couples get married. After living together for 6 months, same sex couples can register as domestic partners.

A federal court held a trial and California's Supreme Court held a trial after two lower California Courts held hearings. Both the federal and teh state courts found one thing to be true about registered domestic partnerships and marriage ....

Separate is NOT equal. Never has been, never will.

"Does this mean that anyone that believes that marriage between a man and a woman is bad now...because of a judge?"

No more than all Roman Catholics are "bad" because the Church does not believe in civil marital divorce. There is a very real difference between religious beliefs and equal treatment under the law.

"Does it make a girl "marriage to another girl" improper and unlegal if now she engages in a relationship between herself and a man"

No more than a man's marriage to a woman is improper and illegal if he engages in a relationship with another women - be it adultery or bigamy.

Here is a You Tube concerning US Constitutional law and the 14 Supreme Court decisions concerning the fundamental right to marriage. Interesting and on Fox News.

What a great interview! I'm going to email the link to my Armenian friend who is getting an M.A. in political science and expressed disappointment with the decision. She couldn't understand how, if the people voted one way, the court could overturn it. I tried to bring up the issue of past civil rights decisions, but she didn't think that was a good comparison. Perhaps this interview will help her understand better. He was very clear and concise with his citations of past court cases. The fact that he served in Bush's administration and argued in the Supreme Court for Bush against Gore just makes his claim stronger to me because he's not your typical proponent of gay marriage.

Howdy Vicki,

I want to thank you for thinking of me when the decision was announced. It seems to me that Milo and I very well may be the only gay people that many on here know in any depth.

However, your thinking this decision is good for me and other gay people misses the point of the decision. Marriage Equality is good for ALL Californians. The protection of EVERYONE"S rights to due process and equal protection under the law is a very good thing for lgbt and straight people alike.

I love living in a country that not only permits but actually fosters evangelical Christians, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, atheists, Muslims, LDS - all faiths and all views - EQUALLY treated under the law. So the decision about Marriage Equality is really a decision about what it means to be an American. I praise our Constitution and all the Amendments thereto. Those few words of law are and ought to be applied equally to ALL Americans alike - all races, all creeds, all sexual orietations, all sexes. It is really amazing when you study other countries, other systems of government, and history. Amazing indeed.

So I congratulate YOU on the Proposition 8 decision. YOUR rights to equal treatment under the law have been protected in California as well as mine.

One of the basic definitions of marriage is " an intimate or close union". This is probably the basis for the definition of the marraige "rite" There isn't anything in that definition that states the sexual orientation of the people taking part in that rite. Since a marraige between people is an intimate and close union what this judge has done, and what is TRUE, is say that you cannot exclude unions that some people find repugnant on religious grounds.

We have separation of church and state in this country as one our most treasured and basic rights. This means that a religious viewpoint cannot dictate what the State can do AND that the State cannot dictate what a church can do. So the State cannot force a church to marry same sex couples if it is against its doctrine.

So all we are doing is clarifying, as Richard pointed out, the rights we all have.

Richard,

You are correct in your assessment. You and Milo are the only Gay people who I know much about. My social life is very limited and I live in a rural community. Whereas I do know several gay people, it's not in a social situation where we exchange ideas.

That is why I love having the misc. side of the forum where we can discuss many issues.

Excellent interview!

I have told Richard, in private communication, that he is the person who has educated me the most about same sex issues. I am eternally grateful for the friendship I have had with him all these years. Beyond all the migraine help he has given me, I have learned so much I would never have known about struggles he and people in his situation have had.

I used to think that civil union was a good compromise for same sex couples. Then, Richard's beloved Steve passed away. We all know how horridly Richard was treated by the Sheriff. It wasn't because the sheriff was an evil man. I am sure he was polite, too. Yet, just because society hadn't evolved enough yet, Richard was forced into taking actions, which a spouse does not have to do in the same situation. Our friend, Richard, had to acquiesce to the will of the state over what should have been his decisions and his alone.

I don't want to live in a country which treats people as less than they are and does so with the full support of the government. Yet, my opinion does not matter. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, laid out the Bill of Rights and our Constitution in such a way that the majority cannot run roughshod over the rights of any minority.

While the majority of this country practices one of many different religions, our country is not a theocracy. If one's church/synagogue/temple/mosque does not permit same sex marriage, then they can continue to do so. But...they're are not allowed to dictate what other entities do within the law.

Personally, I cannot wait until this is all over so I no longer have to type "same sex marriage" and can just say marriage whenever referring to two people who have committed themselves to one another and been joined in matrimony!

This is a big step of a battle that we will win. Civilization means to accept changes and to change mentality. I am glad that I was born in the Western World where people and Governments are prepared to change mentality.
It takes time, efforts, sufference, but we finally make it.
Divorce in the past has been a hard fight, but we obtained it.
Abortion is legal despite all the obstacles and polemics that religious groups still arise.
Same-sex marriages are becoming a reality in many countries.

Richard, recently the major of my city celebrated the first gay civil union in this Catholic Country.
I let you imagine what the reaction of the Vatican was!!!
Our major went on despite the threathens and the accusations and I am proud to be born in this city. It's always been an exemple for the rest of a country which I don't like despite it's my country.