http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html

2,1800
views2,290 Get Los Angeles Alerts
Email Comments 2,290 In a major victory for gay rights activists, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution's equal protection and due process rights clauses.

After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008.

"Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect," Walker ruled.

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."

The judgment was the first offered by a federal court with respect to laws banning gay marriage at the state level and it promises to have massive reverberations across the political and judicial landscape. The decision is now expected to head to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court (also based in San Francisco) for appeal and from there to the Supreme Court.

In the interim, however, Walker's ruling gave gay-rights activists a second occasion to rejoice in less than a month. In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as one man and one woman, was also unconstitutional.

etc


UP NEXT? SUPREME COURT

And it will clear the Supreme Court. No matter your personal feelings on the issue, the ban was unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised that we review the Constitution ever 20 or so years and update it accordingly. Had we done so, we wouldn't have to define something as basic as marriage.

Marriage is already defined as is. My personal feelings aside, it's the redefenition of marriage that's causing this quagmire, and I trust that the supreme court will oust this nonsense (or madness) in due time. The DOMA will continue to reign supreme.

Irrespective of Harry and Dick's homosexual sentiments, marriage remains a priviledge and not a right.

@Condom,

Irrespective of Harry and manliness's homosexual sentiments, marriage remains a priviledge and not a right.

GBAM to the power of infinity!!!!

Condom:

Irrespective of Harry and manliness's homosexual sentiments, marriage remains a priviledge and not a right.

interesting, would u be opposed to a law that outlawed interracial marriage? it's a privilege abi?

FYI: the supreme court would likely uphold this ruling in a couple of years.
victory for the left, hurray

bawomolo:

interesting, would u be opposed to a law that outlawed interracial marriage? it's a privilege abi?

FYI: the supreme court would likely uphold this ruling in a couple of years.
victory for the left, hurray

Very typical of bawo the brain-farter to compare apples and oranges. Interracial couples are not attempting to redefine the institution of marriage.

Fair enough let's wait patiently to see what the supreme court will decide.

And how about them Lakers?

Condom:

Interracial couples are not attempting to redefine the institution of marriage. 

they were, jim crow laws back then boldly stated marriages couldn't exist between interracial couples.  i know it's hard for people to associate the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement but they both have parallel. 

by the way, who defined the institution of marriage. is polygamy against the institution of marriage?

Fair enough let's wait patiently to see what the supreme court will decide.

that a state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional?

And how about them Lakers? 

preparing to give up to title to the bulls abi 

bawomolo:

they were, jim crow laws back then boldly stated marriages couldn't exist between interracial couples. i know it's hard for people to associate the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement but they both have parallel.

by the way, who defined the institution of marriage. is polygamy against the institution of marriage?

that a state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional?

That marriage is a union between man and wife and the state/federal government extends benefits to them for reasons emanating from that definition. Clearly, interracial union does not breach that definition, does it? Once the government recognized this, the Jim Crow laws were annulled.

Now, defining marriage as a union between lovers is clearly sentimental nonsense which gay rights crusaders and their proponents like to trump.

Condom:

That marriage is a union between man and wife and the state/federal government extends benefits to them for reasons emanating from that definition. Clearly, interracial union does not breach that definition, does it? Once the government recognized this, the Jim Crow laws were annulled.

Now, defining marriage as a union between lovers is clearly sentimental nonsense which gay rights crusaders and their proponents like to trump.

don't sidestep the question, does the definition of marriage include polygamy? who gets to define marriage. heterosexuals?

bawomolo:

don't sidestep the question, does the definition of marriage include polygamy? who gets to define marriage. heterosexuals?

It's not about who gets to define marriage. It's about what marriage is and has always been. I think I've done extremely well refuting all the points and barrage of questions you raised.

If homosexuals would like their domestic unions legalized by federal authorities, I hold no grudges against them. Let the state and federal government grant them benefits as they deem fit.

bawomolo:

don't sidestep the question, does the definition of marriage include polygamy? who gets to define marriage. heterosexuals?

who got to define marriage in 1745?

the absurdity of folks who think that statements like this prove they are "progressive" blows my mind.

bawomolo:

they were, jim crow laws back then boldly stated marriages couldn't exist between interracial couples.  i know it's hard for people to associate the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement but they both have parallel. 

by the way, who defined the institution of marriage. is polygamy against the institution of marriage?

that a state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional?

preparing to give up to title to the bulls abi 

hmm parallels like what exactly? So if you're gay you get to sit at the back of the bus or go to second-rate schools or be unable to vote or refused citizenship . . . ?

I hope you folks understand that "jim crow" laws went far beyond marriage.

davidylan:

hmm parallels like what exactly? So if you're gay you get to sit at the back of the bus or go to second-rate schools or be unable to vote or refused citizenship . . . ?

I hope you folks understand that "jim crow" laws went far beyond marriage.

ever heard of sodomy laws? it's absurd to say homosexuals weren't discriminated against in US history.  this is not to compare their suffering with that of blacks or jews but they are a targeted community.

who said jim crow laws was only intended to curb interracial marriage?

davidylan:

who got to define marriage in 1745?

the absurdity of folks who think that statements like this prove they are "progressive" blows my mind.

this is 2010, such definitions can be changed and aren't fixed.

i won't even respond to your personal taunts. not once have i referred to myself as a progressive.

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.

democracy and freedom mean having to accept that others are free to adopt lifestyle choices you may find offensive or threatening

anyone who has issues with gay rights is free to move to iran or nigeria or mozambique where those abominations are dealt with properly

bawomolo:

ever heard of sodomy laws? it's absurd to say homosexuals weren't discriminated against in US history.  this is not to compare their suffering with that of blacks or jews but they are a targeted community.

So are paedophiles, necrophilics, nudist, incestors etc.

They are targeted communities that are discriminated againsts with parallels to Blacks. They can as well get on the "cheap credibility" float and leech themselves to civil rights by quoting their parallels as being discriminated against and "they have a dream, that one day . . . . "!

The thing that makes me laugh is that, as I heard (not proven), one of the judge's fundamental premise for overturning the ban was that: it is not right to enact laws based on moral values.

Fck me Lord! 

Fck me Lord, then the US will have to overturn a lot of laws as a wide range of them cause no harm and are just based on moral values.

Hurray to steaming, alfresco sex! 

Overturn bigamy laws.

You can even drop your pants and poo in public in Times Square, just make sure you hygienically clean up and dispose after you do so. (Trust me, there are people that will do this if it is not against the law. Weirdos plenty)

Stop age grading of movies.

What a retarded, faggoted judge!

If I was in the legal team of the Proposition 8 agitators, I will quickly lunch suits against all laws that are based on moral values and refer to this case to justify their removal from the legal statutes.

I will target the ones that an overturn will enrage the public.

bawomolo:

ever heard of sodomy laws? it's absurd to say homosexuals weren't discriminated against in US history.  this is not to compare their suffering with that of blacks or jews but they are a targeted community.

Sodomy laws include bestiality . . . are you also calling against this blatant "discrimination" against my right to marry my dog? Sodomy laws also included MouthAction . . . any heterosexual couples complaining of being prosecuted under this law?

you people seem to lack coherence when it comes to issues like this.

bawomolo:

this is 2010, such definitions can be changed and aren't fixed.

That's nonsense . . . when its 2025 we'll change the law to accomodate peadophiles too?

davidylan:

Sodomy laws include bestiality . . . are you also calling against this blatant "discrimination" against my right to marry my dog? Sodomy laws also included MouthAction . . . any heterosexual couples complaining of being prosecuted under this law?

sodomy laws were hardly ever used to prosecute heterosexual couples and were intended to target homosexual couples.   This can't be denied.

how does your dog consent to this marriage, can he sign a marriage certificate?

you people seem to lack coherence when it comes to issues like this.

what "people"

That's nonsense . . . when its 2025 we'll change the law to accomodate peadophiles too?

the slippery slope theory doesn't work here.   the idea that we would go into a state of anarchy just because homosexuals get to marry is laughable.

bawomolo:


how does your dog consent to this marriage, can he sign a marriage certificate?

These sentimental arguments can easily be torn to shreds.

If "animal consent" is so important, why don't we require animals to consent to or sign a death agreement before killing them for food.

Condom:

These sentimental arguments can easily be torn to shreds.

If "animal consent" is so important, why don't we require animals to consent to or sign a death agreement before killing them for food.

are you comparing being a carnivore to getting married?
what would we not hear.

bawomolo:

are you comparing being a carnivore to getting married?
what would we not hear.

Are you now looking to trivialize the importance of "animal consent", which according to your earlier entry shouldn't be "overlooked"? I laugh out loud at you Mr. Awomolo.

How about some consistency?

Condom:

Are you now looking to trivialize the importance of "animal consent", which according to your earlier entry shouldn't be "overlooked"?  I laugh out loud at you Mr. Awomolo. 

How about some consistency?

how does killing an animal compare to a conscientious relationship between two ADULTS?

don't be putting out my government name out there negro

bawomolo:

how does killing an animal compare to a conscientious relationship between two ADULTS?

don't be putting out my government name out there negro

They do compare. Don't attempt to negate valid arguments simply because they do not buttress your point.

bawomolo:

how does killing an animal compare to a conscientious relationship between two ADULTS?

don't be putting out my government name out there negro 

Bawo, I actually think he has a point there.

You said it is "discrimination" to not allow homosexuality marriage under Sodomy laws, that that makes them a targeted community, humans should be free to marry whoever they wish.

The counter argument was that, it must also be "discrimination" to not allow bestial marriage under Sodomy laws, that humans should be free to marry whatever they wish otherwise they are also a targeted community.

You said it must be OK for Sodomy laws to ban bestial marriage as the animal cannot give consent to marriage, as it cannot sign a marriage certificate.

So the man gave you a disruptive argument that what relevance is animal consent if you can eat an animal without its consent.

I think that argument is very valid.

Why?

Your argument of need of consent is sought of giving a protection and right of the animal to have a choice.

But if it is legal to kill an animal without consent, then surely no consent should be needed to pleasure an animal as it shows they have no right and pleasure is definitely a nicer thing for the animal than killing. 

Men there are some weird arguments going on here.

bawomolo:

how does killing an animal compare to a conscientious relationship between two ADULTS?

don't be putting out my government name out there negro 

Furthermore, Polygamy is a conscientious relationship between 2 or more ADULTS, yet it is banned under bigamy laws.

Is that not discrimination on non-christians (muslims, pagans and honey men like me  ) and make them/us a targeted community to enforce christian moral values on them/us? 

I am sure our dear faggoted judge in California will not overturn such bans and the US constitution accepts it.

Sagamite:

Furthermore, Polygamy is a conscientious relationship between 2 or more ADULTS, yet it is banned under bigamy laws.

Is that not discrimination on non-christians (muslims, pagans and honey men like me  ) and make them/us a targeted community to enforce christian moral values on them/us? 

I am sure our dear faggoted judge in California will not overturn such bans and the US constitution accepts it.

There are Christian polygamists; in the US, they even have their own state. Oddly enough, the Mormons were HUGE financial contributors to Prop 8 and were attacked as 'freaks' by the opposition; the hypocrisy was blinding. But, you're right about this issue being a slippery slope but at the end of the day, the ban isn't constitutional. In this country, the most basic of things has to be spelled out (in big bold letters) before it will be accepted. Leave a centimeter for interpretation and someone will take advantage of it. It's only a matter of time before churches will be dragged in to the mire and told they need to perform gay marriages or lose their tax-exempt status.

Travelista:

There are Christian polygamists; in the US, they even have their own state. Oddly enough, the Mormons were HUGE financial contributors to Prop 8 and were attacked as 'freaks' by the opposition; the hypocrisy was blinding. But, you're right about this issue being a slippery slope but at the end of the day, the ban isn't constitutional. In this country, the most basic of things has to be spelled out (in big bold letters) before it will be accepted. Leave a centimeter for interpretation and someone will take advantage of it. It's only a matter of time before churches will be dragged in to the mire and told they need to perform gay marriages or lose their tax-exempt status.

Yep! You are on point.

As I have always said, do not give gays and gay rights an inch otherwise they will go light years of miles.

People were too daft back then when they chopped the crap that all they were being asked for was to be "toleratant" when legalising homosexuality. Now they see what happens, they adopt kids, they are forcing them to do their deviancy in church and soon . . . . . . . . MOSQUE.

ALLAAAAAHU AKBAR!  GBOAAAAAAAAAAAAAW! That is all I will say. 

It is very funny I read that the American Psychiatric Association society describes paedeophilia as a "mental disorder" under the Sexual Deviation classification but have removed homosexuality from that list. 

It is funny they even formulated treatments and therapy for paedophilic desires but then argue their can not be any treatment or therapy for Homosexuality desires. 

Under their "classification" ANY 16 year old boy that has have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for girls that are 5 years younger (an 11 year old) is a sexual deviant with a mental disorder, but 2 gays are normal.

Fck me Lord!  These guys are just part of the fraud and deceit. 

It is funny it is suggested that 2% to 13% of the population are homosexuals. Anecdoctally, it appears over 70% of real paedophiles arrested tend to assault either boys only or both boys and girls, hence homosexual traits.

But yet, one is a mental disorder under the Sexual Deviation classification and the other is not?    Excuse me?  There is no link in both deviancy? How come most paedophiles are gay?

Real paedophile, as in, not some unprincipled, lack-of-self-control adult having sex with a 14-15 year old with bosoms that already has fully developed/developing feminine features, I am talking of those that assualt kids like 8 year olds that one would wonder what is the sexual desire.

Sagamite:

Furthermore, Polygamy is a conscientious relationship between 2 or more ADULTS, yet it is banned under bigamy laws.

Is that not discrimination on non-christians (muslims, pagans and honey men like me  ) and make them/us a targeted community to enforce christian moral values on them/us? 

I am sure our dear faggoted judge in California will not overturn such bans and the US constitution accepts it.

come on saga you already me, when have i had a problem with polygamy.   
they can have sin assemblies and it won't bother me, i may even join self.

It's only a matter of time before churches will be dragged in to the mire and told they need to perform gay marriages or lose their tax-exempt status.

not really, why would churches be dragged into this controversy? churches shouldn't be forced to hold gay marriages. 
are they forced to hold them in netherlands or argentina?

How come most paedophiles are gay?

could you support this statement sir.

pleasure is definitely a nicer thing for the animal than killing.

saga, abeg leave that he goat with bia bia alone. he doesn't like your nightly visits

bawomolo:

come on saga you already me, when have i had a problem with polygamy.   
they can have sin assemblies and it won't bother me, i may even join self.

I trust.

I am just faulting the logic of the faulty legal grounds/arguments that they keep using to force homosexuality on society.

How I wish say I be lawyer o.

bawomolo:

not really, why would churches be dragged into this controversy? churches shouldn't be forced to hold gay marriages. 
are they forced to hold them in netherlands or argentina?

I agree but they are continuously being forced or put under pressure to do so.

bawomolo:

could you support this statement sir.

Majority of paedophiles I read about or see arrested appear to fall into this category of same sex paedophilia.

I have searched for data, but it is not recorded. I wonder why? Pink power?

That is why I said "anedoctally".

You take a look at the child abuse by the Catholic Priests.

Whatever the data will be, without a shadow of a doubt, it will far exceed the 2% to 13% suggested homosexuality in society.

bawomolo:

saga, abeg leave that he goat with bia bia alone. he doesn't like your nightly visits

Oloshi!

Sagamite:

I agree but they are continuously being forced or put under pressure to do so.

i won't support such a move, most gay marriages are held in city hall.

You take a look at the child abuse by the Catholic Priests.

that's prolly because most catholic priest have more access to boys, the same goes for nuns and girls.