Judge to a bunch of assholes on California: Suck it.

[Nimrod's Son]

i mean what's next, a black judge and jury to decide on reparations or what

[Nimrod's Son]

oh by the way eulogy "a bunch of assholes" is the majority of Californians. i know you like to make it out to be a fringe conservative group but it's really over 50% of people who live in the most liberal state that are against homosexual "marriage"

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

oh by the way eulogy "a bunch of assholes" is the majority of Californians. i know you like to make it out to be a fringe conservative group but it's really over 50% of people who live in the most liberal state that are against homosexual "marriage"

Are you just trolling me now or what? Didn't you vote no?

I never said it was less than a majority. How is that relevant?

And you and Corganist should actually read some of the goddamn opinion. There is no bias in it whatsoever. What do you fucking expect when the defense offers two witnesses with very little expertise and no factual basis or evidence for any of the claims they made.

[Eulogy]

Also "most liberal state" is completely untrue.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

i mean what's next, a black judge and jury to decide on reparations or what

And all women should recuse themselves from trials relating to women's rights, I guess.

You guys can take shots in the dark at how his being gay colored his decision, but until you point to something in the decision, you can fuck right off.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

The more I read about this decision, the more it sounds like a pretty hollow victory.

Hollow because it might not stick. Point me to something else that says it's hollow for a different reason, please.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Not to mention that his conduct of the trial was pretty bad. He got slapped down by appellate courts a couple times during the trial itself (which is unusual) for things he was trying to do that (coincidentally I'm sure) were things opposed by the anti-gay-marriage side. He even had the US Supreme Court have to come in and overrule one of his orders at one point, which is exceedingly odd. It doesn't seem like the appearance of impartiality was very high on his list. And what little I've read thus far of/about the opinion itself seems to bear that out too.

Please be specific. You're too vague to speak like this with authority. And again, what have you read about the opinion that bears any of this out?

[duovamp]

Judges gonna judge.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

you really should read up on things before commenting. Prop 8 is still in place pending appeal

On Wednesday, at least, the purely practical impact of the decision was limited, and gay and lesbian couples such as Perry and Stier were unable to rush to the altar. Walker attached a stay order to his ruling, freezing it for at least a few days until a separate hearing can be held on whether to allow same-sex marriages while the case is appealed.

Read more: Prop. 8 judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban

So no, it's not "still in place pending appeal" yet. Maybe you should read up on things before commenting.

[Eulogy]

These are the reasons the proponents of prop 8 put forth at trial:

Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition
8, see Doc #605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1)
reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and
excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with
caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting oppositesex
parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom
of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating
same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any
other conceivable interest.

...and we're surprised that a judge found that they didn't prove it with their two useless witnesses? seriously??

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Are you just trolling me now or what? Didn't you vote no?

I never said it was less than a majority. How is that relevant?

And you and Corganist should actually read some of the goddamn opinion. There is no bias in it whatsoever. What do you fucking expect when the defense offers two witnesses with very little expertise and no factual basis or evidence for any of the claims they made.

Yes I voted no but I also believe in accepting the majority opinion even when an election doesn't go my way. I realize this is a radical statement in this day and age where all of our laws need to be written by judges.

[Eulogy]

Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny
under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples
from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate
state interest. One example of a legitimate state interest in not
issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity
of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them. But
marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and
the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California
shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and
opposite-sex couples to wed.

..

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

And all women should recuse themselves from trials relating to women's rights, I guess.

You guys can take shots in the dark at how his being gay colored his decision, but until you point to something in the decision, you can fuck right off.

Oh come on, it's like "The People vs. Randal Graves. The Honorable Randal Graves presiding."

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Yes I voted no but I also believe in accepting the majority opinion even when an election doesn't go my way. I realize this is a radical statement in this day and age where all of our laws need to be written by judges.

Marriage is a fundamental right that cannot constitutionally be put to a vote. What if, hypothetically, CA voters decided that all people named Mike should be brutally tortured? IT'S THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY!

[Eulogy]

The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the
appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative
classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications
based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows
that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize
individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here,
however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to
survive even rational basis review.

..

[Eulogy]

Don't argue with me. Argue with the judge. You'll fail miserably.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

So no, it's not "still in place pending appeal" yet. Maybe you should read up on things before commenting.

It's still pending appeal. Christ you're insufferable with the little semantic games you like to play so you can feel like you get a "win." I AWARD YOU 7 INTERNET POINTS

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Marriage is a fundamental right

lol no it is not

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

It's still pending appeal. Christ you're insufferable with the little semantic games you like to play so you can feel like you get a "win." I AWARD YOU 7 INTERNET POINTS

Uh, you were wrong. Sorry for pointing it out? Obviously the decision is pending appeal. It is unknown whether prop 8 will continue to be enforced pending appeal.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

lol no it is not

Have you ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? The SCOTUS says it is. And so it is.

[Eulogy]

I mean holy god you're so mindblowingly wrong.

[Eulogy]

Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors ... California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate ... Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages. ... 'Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.'

..

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Are you just trolling me now or what? Didn't you vote no?

I never said it was less than a majority. How is that relevant?

And you and Corganist should actually read some of the goddamn opinion. There is no bias in it whatsoever. What do you fucking expect when the defense offers two witnesses with very little expertise and no factual basis or evidence for any of the claims they made.

With what I've read of the opinion thus far, and again, the circus-like way the judge handled the case, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that there's "no bias whatsoever."

Yes, what I've read thus far shows the defense did a particularly shitty job here, probably because they're state attorneys who were opposing the case because they had to and not because they actually believed their own arguments (such as they were). Plus, it's not like California really has the funds to go toe to toe with the big money who was almost certainly backing the anti-Prop 8 side. But even so, it doesn't follow that all of the plaintiff's witnesses were all completely credible experts whose opinions could be accepted as gospel truth, while all (okay, both) of the defense's witnesses were somehow eminently unqualified or not credible. That just comes off as a very intellectually lazy way out.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Uh, you were wrong. Sorry for pointing it out? Obviously the decision is pending appeal. It is unknown whether prop 8 will continue to be enforced pending appeal.

You're just trying to obfuscate the fact that you believed Prop 8 was at current not enforced. Which is a real wrong as opposed to a semantic one. But don't worry, you win the internet today

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Have you ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? The SCOTUS says it is. And so it is.

The SCOTUS doesn't write the Constitution, wherein our rights are detailed. It interprets it.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I mean holy god you're so mindblowingly wrong.

ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH EULOGY IS WRONG, PEOPLE

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

With what I've read of the opinion thus far, and again, the circus-like way the judge handled the case, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that there's "no bias whatsoever."

Yes, what I've read thus far shows the defense did a particularly shitty job here, probably because they're state attorneys who were opposing the case because they had to and not because they actually believed their own arguments (such as they were). Plus, it's not like California really has the funds to go toe to toe with the big money who was almost certainly backing the anti-Prop 8 side. But even so, it doesn't follow that all of the plaintiff's witnesses were all completely credible experts whose opinions could be accepted as gospel truth, while all (okay, both) of the defense's witnesses were somehow eminently unqualified or not credible. That just comes off as a very intellectually lazy way out.

Why do all the plaintiffs' witnesses have to be supremely credible experts? They had some, the defense had none.

Proponents argued that Proposition 8 should be evaluated solely by considering its language and its consistency with the “central purpose of marriage, in California and everywhere else, * * * to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producingand raising the next generation.” Doc #172-1 at 21. Proponents asserted that marriage for same-sex couples is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus its denial does not deprive persons seeking such unions of due process. See generally Doc #172-1. Nor, proponents continued, does the exclusion of same-sex couples in California from marriage deny them equal protection because, among other reasons, California affords such couples a separate parallel institution under its domestic partnership statutes. Doc #172-1 at 75 et seq.

At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” Id at 23.

Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. Doc #295 at 13-14. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” Tr 3038:7-8. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.” Tr 3037:25-3040:4.

Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents to raise children in stable households. Tr 3050:17-3051:10. The state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage. Tr 3053:10-24. Entrenchment of this norm increases the probability that procreation will occur within a marital union. Because samesex couples’ sexual activity does not lead to procreation, according to proponents the state has no interest in encouraging their sexual activity to occur within a stable marriage. Thus, according to proponents, the state’s only interest is in oppositesexsexual activity.

I went and saw a day of the trial in January and the thing the judge is getting at above kept being hammered by the plaintiffs. Proponents kept suggesting that gay marriage would be bad, but they couldn't cough up any expert or documentary evidence that this was the case. On the day I visited, proponents own expert even went so far as to agree that gay marriage would be a good thing for the children and family of gays. Oops.

Proponent's expert on marriage, David Blankenhorn (author of The Future of Marriage and founder of the Institute for American Values):

Blankenhorn testified that California stands to benefit if it were to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Blankenhorn noted that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” Tr 2850:12-13. Despite the multitude of benefits identified by Blankenhorn that would flow to the state, to gays and lesbians and to American ideals were California to recognize same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn testified that the state should not recognize same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn reasoned that the benefits of same-sex marriage are not valuable enough because same-sex marriage could conceivably weaken marriage as an institution.

The plaintiffs case was then made by showing that there was no evidence for the arguments that gay marriage will weaken marriage as an institution.

http://minx.cc/?post=304288

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The SCOTUS doesn't write the Constitution, wherein our rights are detailed. It interprets it.

Yeah, and? Long ago, it interpreted marriage to be a fundamental right, dictating the legal framework in which we're now operating.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

You're just trying to obfuscate the fact that you believed Prop 8 was at current not enforced. Which is a real wrong as opposed to a semantic one. But don't worry, you win the internet today

Yes, I admittedly jumped the gun and was incorrect. But so were you, and not just semantically. Factually.

[Eulogy]

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319
US 624, 638 (1943). Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the
burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population
Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977). Because the
government defendants declined to advance such arguments,
proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a
compelling California interest in Proposition 8.

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis,
Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less
can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by
plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary
presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of
production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8
cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents
do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships
satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents
stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity
between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.
Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

[...]

SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEX DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 as violating the Equal
Protection Clause because Proposition 8 discriminates both on the
basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual
orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination.
Here, for example, Perry is prohibited from marrying Stier, a
woman, because Perry is a woman. If Perry were a man, Proposition
8 would not prohibit the marriage. Thus, Proposition 8 operates to
restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sex. But
Proposition 8 also operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital
partner because of her sexual orientation; her desire to marry
another woman arises only because she is a lesbian.
The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians
experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and
prejudices specific to sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have
historically been targeted for discrimination because of their
sexual orientation; that discrimination continues to the present.
FF 74-76. As the case of Perry and the other plaintiffs
illustrates, sex and sexual orientation are necessarily
interrelated, as an individual’s choice of romantic or intimate
partner based on sex is a large part of what defines an
individual’s sexual orientation. See FF 42-43. Sexual orientation
discrimination is thus a phenomenon distinct from, but related to,
sex discrimination.

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays
and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so
arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative. FF 57.
Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex ——
heterosexuals —— do not have their choice of marital partner
restricted by Proposition 8. Those who would choose to marry
someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to
marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution.
Homosexual conduct and identity together define what it means to be
gay or lesbian. See FF 42-43. Indeed, homosexual conduct and
attraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of
what makes someone gay or lesbian. Lawrence, 539 US at 579; FF 42-
43; see also Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 561 US __, 130 SCt
2971, No 08-1371 Slip Op at 23 (“Our decisions have declined to
distinguish between status and conduct in [the context of sexual
orientation].”) (June 28, 2010) (citing Lawrence, 539 US at 583
(O’Connor, J, concurring)).

Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner
specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their
relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them
specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the
relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that
Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would
exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection
claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent
to a claim of discrimination based on sex.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection
Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of
review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question
whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should
be subject to a heightened standard of review.
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.
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976)
(noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has
experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been
subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped
characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting
San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See
FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual
orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or
general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21.
The court asked the parties to identify a difference
between heterosexuals and homosexuals that the government might
fairly need to take into account when crafting legislation. Doc
#677 at 8. Proponents pointed only to a difference between samesex
couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of
producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and
opposite-sex couples (some of whom are capable through sexual
intercourse of producing such offspring). Doc #687 at 32-34.
Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government
may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the
government may need to take into account fertility when
legislating. Consider, by contrast, City of Cleburne v Cleburne
Living Center, 473 US 432, 444 (1985) (Legislation singling out a
class for differential treatment hinges upon a demonstration of
“real and undeniable differences” between the class and others);
see also United States v Virginia, 518 US 515, 533 (1996)
(“Physical differences between men and women * * * are enduring.”).
No evidence at trial illuminated distinctions among lesbians, gay
men and heterosexuals amounting to “real and undeniable
differences” that the government might need to take into account in
legislating.

..