The Decision in Perry v Schwarzennegger is for the Plaintiffs

[Riverwind (imported)]

I think this discussion belongs in the political forum? No?

I could go either way, sense its not a political issue as such and this is about what the California courts did, I see no reason to move it.

The judge made the right decision.

River

[sensenbender (imported)]

Certainly I applaud the ruling, and a win at this stage is a whole lot better than a loss, but it is way too early to celebrate. Both sides have expressed determination to take it to the Supreme Court, and as was recently reported the current court is the most conservative in 60 years. I am good at worrying. Particularly with the Tea Party loonies and the evangelicals and the newly resurgent Republican party determined to make gay rights a campaign issue. I fear we may be in for an interesting time the next few years in the old Chinese curse,("May you live in interesting times!") sense.

Transward

The climate has changed dramatically since Prop 8 passed on the same day President Obama was elected. I know it's a mistake to project one's own perspectives onto the body politic, but I, a gay man, remember distinctly being opposed to gay marriage myself not so long ago. I did vote against Prop 8 on the grounds that it was, 'on balance', the better alternative than supporting Prop 8.

But today I'm 'dancing in the streets' because Judge Vaughn Walker had the courage and integrity to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional, and I will join with my friends, gay and straight, here in San Francisco tomorrow and probably get totally wasted out of sheer joy about this outcome.

I stongly believe the climate will 'soften' even further during the year or years it takes to get the matter before the SCOTUS. Also please consider that the SCOTUS might simply refuse to hear the appeal, thereby allowing this decision to stand. They might decide that, as with Roe v Wade, the matter should have been left to the states, and not be decided at the Federal Level (and yes, I know Walker is a Federal Judge).

[Dave (imported)]

It would be impossible for Proposition 8 to be overturned in Arkansas, since the proposition had nothing to do with Arkansas law. Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative in California, voted on by the citizens of California, and enforced by the state of California. It was a process that happened entirely within the state of California, so no state or federal court in Arkansas could have heard the case.

Cases related to California are heard by state and local courts in that state, and then make their way at a federal level starting with the court that made today's ruling, and if appealed it then goes to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals which roughly covers a geography including the western US states. From that court it could go to the US Supreme Court, probably in 2012 at the earliest.

I'm assuming you're probably talking about whatever version of anti-gay marriage law exists in Arkansas?

Look closely at the decisions. I made the point above that this was an evidentiary hearing and as such it had "Findings of Fact" and "Findings of Law."

Now Findings of Law may be disputed in the courts as the appeal process goes on. BUT, Findings of Fact are not subject to dispute or interpretation

unless other facts are brought to bear. This ruling may be cited in state and federal courts and the judges in those cases must give weight. They cannot disregard another courts "finding of fact" without presenting evidence that refutes them.

So when the right wing says "Gay parents raise bad kids," this court case counters that is not true as a "Finding of Fact." The right wing argument cannot prevail. The mere opinion of a judge is insufficient to dispute that finding.

That's a powerful tool in the legal world.

This ruling changed everything. It is pointed as a love letter to Justice Kennedy. It quotes Kennedy's opinions and decisions in its logic and presentation. Right now this goes to the Supreme Court and you will have on our side: Kagan, Souter, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kennedy (who could be the swing vote). This is the entire ball game in one decision.

GLBT persons as a class protected against discrimination like sex and race. That's going to be the law of the land.

[Losethem (imported)]

Look closely at the decisions. I made the point above that this was an evidentiary hearing and as such it had "Findings of Fact" and "Findings of Law."

My point was that the post I responded to said that Prop 8 had been overturned in Arkansas. There is no possible way that *California* Prop 8 could have had that happen there.

An Arkansas court on a state or federal level would not have had jurisdiction over this particular proposition.

Now, you're correct, as this case winds its way through the federal courts, the ultimate decision at the Supreme Court is what will stand. Nothing else will matter, unless the Supreme Court rejects the case without comment thereby letting the lower court ruling stand.

[Dave (imported)]

ARKANSAS from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_C ... %282004%29

Constitutional Amendment 3 of 2004, is a defense of marriage amendment that amended the Arkansas Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions, even though it is unconstitutional for it to do so. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[1]

The text of the amendment states:

1. Marriage. Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.

2. Marital status. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman.

3. Capacity, rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.[2]

>>I love Wikipedia's editorial policy (that was sarcasm BTW). What I think the writer of the Wiki article refers to as unconstitutional is that Arkansas is required by the US Constitution to recognize marriages (and legal proceedings) from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

>>If the decision in Perry v Schwarzenegger stands, then Arkansas will be compelled to recognize other marriages and possibly remove the restrictions from their law.

>>That's why Las Vegas weddings are legit in any state the same as Las Vegas Quicky Divorces...

[Mac (imported)]

Where in the United States Constitution is the power to define and regulate marriage given to the U.S. Government or denied to the states? It appears that any constitutional tests should be based on the respective state constitutions.

[Dave (imported)]

Where in the United States Constitution is the power to define and regulate marriage given to the U.S. Government or denied to the states? It appears that any constitutional tests should be based on the respective state constitutions.

State constitutions have been, are, and will be subject to the US Constitution to pass muster in terms of Constitutionality. No state can pass a law that takes rights away from citizens or discriminates against citizens.

That's called a) Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, b) and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also, Article VI says that they constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."

And then there is Article IV:

a) the Full Faith and Credit clause: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

b) and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

c) "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"

And finally, the highest legal authority in the USA is the Supreme Court.

to quote Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

[gareth19 (imported)]

State constitutions have been, are, and will be subject to the US Constitution to pass muster in terms of Constitutionality. No state can pass a law that takes rights away from citizens or discriminates against citizens.

That's called a) Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, b) and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also, Article VI says that they constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."

And then there is Article IV:

a) the Full Faith and Credit clause: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

b) and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

c) "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"

And finally, the highest legal authority in the USA is the Supreme Court.

to quote Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The Constitution leaves states the right to regulate marriage; that has been taken by the Supreme Court to mean determine the age and consanguinity of the couples (Jerry Lee Lewis's right to marry his 14-year-old gum-chewing first cousin has not been seriously impaired, no has Nevada's decision to dispense with syphilis testing of the partners, but since the 60's the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot deny the complete right of marriage to a citizen based on invidious criteria such as skin color or national ancestry. Judge Walker apparently beieves that adding sexual discrimination is also wrong. However, states do establish different age requirements based on sex. The argument is that boys mature later and think with their cocks more often, so some states have a statutory delay of two years for male to marry without parental consent.

Given the idea that gay is just a phase, it is conceivable that a state statute mandating that a male cannot marry another male until he reaches 65 (in case he has a long time finding his true sexuality) might pass muster.

[Dave (imported)]

...

Given the idea that gay is just a phase, it is conceivable that a state statute mandating that a male cannot marry another male until he reaches 65 (in case he has a long time finding his true sexuality) might pass muster.

And how would that be different from saying that blacks and whites cannot marry until 65? That was a prevailing view 50 or 60 years ago. Or how about white parents adopting oriental kids? The real ending of "South Pacific" was that the Balinese girl was left alone and pregnant by the death of her lover. That spoils the happy ending of the story, though.

Why don't you start a thread on the EA asking if "gay" was ever a phase or an option? I somehow think you know what the results would be.

[A-1 (imported)]

MUAH.... HA HA!

The GIRLY BOYS have BEATEN the GOVERNATOR...! OH, GOVERNATOR..., YOUR BALLS have BEEN kicked... OH! ...what a FEELING, huh? NOW, Hold your BALLS tightly and LIMP home to your aneorexic wifey. Well, that's what a REPUBLICAN gets for marrying into a DEMOCRATIC family...

...Long LIVE THE GIRLY BOYS!



shit...

:shakemitk