Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (poll, felons)

[jaada]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Why is a gay man ruling in a case about a Gay marriage ban any different than someone who is in an inter-racial relationship ruling in a case about an Inter-racial marriage ban??

true- i didnt look at it like that

[Wingsy]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

You think it will be that soon?

It could be that soon, though I suspect it may take a bit longer. I honestly don't think the judicial system is in a huge hurry to settle this... and I don't mean that in a bad or negative way, I simply mean that I think they're wanting to ensure that it is given sufficient consideration at every step.

A determination by the Supreme Court on this will have some unusually far-reaching consequences and impact, no matter which way they rule. As much as I am emotionally "in a hurry" to have my GLBT friends equally protected and receiving the same benefits my husband and I enjoy... I don't want mistakes to be made in the process. I want this issue settled, and I think patience is the key to that goal as much as it irks me personally and negatively affects many that I love and care for.

[tpk-nyc]

Originally Posted by Johnny C

It really will come down to this simple, yet difficult decision.

Answer #1 – It is not a choice to be gay – you are born that way and your Constitutional rights of equal protection / due process are being violated because you can’t get married like everyone else.

Answer #2 – You make the choice to be gay, and thus have chosen not to exercise your Constitutional rights of equal protection / due process. You could get married like everyone else, but choose to be gay.

That is what it will come down to – like it or not.

Good discussion!

That point is listed in the Findings of Fact:

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual
may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or
any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

That is why this case is so far reaching and demonstrates how the inept the Proponents' attorneys were. Both of their "expert" witnesses were deemed to carry little or no weight. They didn't get a single point listed as a Finding of Fact. On appeal, Findings of Fact are generally accepted by the judges who are supposed to look at the Conclusions of Law.

Judge Walker documents this with citations from the trial, all from the Plaintiffs:

a. Tr 2032:15-22 (Herek: Herek has conducted research in
which he has found that the vast majority of lesbians and
gay men, and most bisexuals as well, when asked how much
choice they have about their sexual orientation say that
they have “no choice” or “very little choice” about it.);

b. Tr 2054:12-2055:24 (Herek: PX0928 at 39 contains a table
that reports data on approximately 2,200 people who
responded to questions about how much choice they had
about being lesbian, gay or bisexual. Among gay men, 87
percent said that they experienced no or little choice
about their sexual orientation. Among lesbians, 70
percent said that they had no or very little choice about
their sexual orientation.); Tr 2056:4-25 (Herek: PX0930
demonstrates that 88 percent of gay men reported that
they had “no choice at all” about their sexual
orientation, and 68 percent of lesbians said they had “no
choice at all,” and another 15 percent reported a small
amount of choice.);

c. Tr 2252:1-10 (Herek: “It is certainly the case that there
have been many people who, most likely because of
societal stigma, wanted very much to change their sexual
orientation and were not able to do so.”);

d. Tr 2314:3-17 (Herek: Herek agrees with Peplau’s statement
that “[c]laims about the potential erotic plasticity of
women do not mean that most women will actually exhibit
change over time. At a young age, many women adopt
patterns of heterosexuality that are stable across their
lifetime. Some women adopt enduring patterns of same-sex
attractions and relationships.”);

e. Tr 2202:8-22 (Herek: “[M]ost people are brought up in
society assuming that they will be heterosexual. Little
boys are taught that they will grow up and marry a girl.
Little girls are taught they will grow up and marry a
boy. And growing up with those expectations, it is not
uncommon for people to engage in sexual behavior with
someone of the other sex, possibly before they have
developed their real sense of who they are, of what their
sexual orientation is. And I think that’s one of the
reasons why * * * [gay men and lesbians have]
experience[d] heterosexual intercourse. * * * [i]t is not
part of their identity. It’s not part of who they are,
and not indicative of their current attractions.”);

f. Tr 2033:6-2034:20 (Herek: Therapies designed to change an
individual’s sexual orientation have not been found to be
effective in that they have not been shown to
consistently produce the desired outcome without causing
harm to the individuals involved.); Tr 2039:1-3 (Herek:
Herek is not aware of any major mental health
organizations that have endorsed the use of such
therapies.);

g. Tr 140:6, 141:14-19 (Perry: Perry is a lesbian and feels
that she was born with her sexual orientation. At 45
years old, she does not think that it might somehow
change.);

h. Tr 166:24-167:9 (Stier: Stier is 47 years old and has
fallen in love one time in her life —— with Perry.);

i. Tr 77:4-5 (Zarrillo: Zarrillo has been gay “as long as
[he] can remember.”);

j. Tr 91:15-17 (Katami: Katami has been a “natural-born gay”
“as long as he can remember.”);

k. Tr 1506:2-11 (Kendall: “When I was a little kid, I knew I
liked other boys. But I didn’t realize that meant I was
gay until I was, probably, 11 or 12 years old. * * * I
ended up looking up the word ‘homosexual’ in the
dictionary. And I remember reading the definition[.]
* * * And it slowly dawned on me that that’s what I
was.”);

l. Tr 1510:6-8 (Kendall: “I knew I was gay just like I knew
I’m short and I’m half Hispanic. And I just never
thought that those facts would change.”).

[jaada]

Originally Posted by Smash255

So in other words you believe only straight people should judge cases about Gays, only white people should judge cases about Civil Rights Issues, only men should judge cases about women's rights issues, etc. Is that what you are trying to suggest??

oh ok yeah i see your point, i didnt think of it that way.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Wingsy

I understand that you actually believe this to be true. I also understand from having watched it happen that you are incorrect.

Tell me - how does one legally assign their social security benefits to a non-spouse? How about their pension benefits?

The Federal government shouldnt be involved in social security benefits.. Again, thats a welfare program which is what people are asking for.. welfare.. But why couldnt they open it up just like a child receives benefits from their parent? You dont need to change "marriage" to open up benefits.. Pensions are individual assets, again, there shouldnt be government involvement in who one leaves their own money to. It would get passed along in a will..

Originally Posted by Wingsy

As to other benefits that can be obtained through legal wranglings rather than through marriage - how is it equal treatment to require one couple to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys and court filings and the like, in order to obtain benefits that another couple can receive through spending $20 at their local court house, once?

Examples? Most wills dont cost thousands of dollars to setup, and neither do trusts.. I own dozens of trusts, and they are created for free and run under a state jurisdiction. Again, no federal government involvement.

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Just a question, but though you are unmarried, you are free to marry, right?

There are federal penalties for me to get married just like there are penalties for many who are unmarried. If the federal government was out of it completely, neither of these would be true..

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

You choose not to, so you choose the additional legal burdens to extend the benefits of marriage to your "spouse" without benefit of marriage.

No.. legal burdens exists on everyone to make sure that your wishes are carried out through your estate. This is true for married, unmarried, gays, or straights. Dont act like being responsible and taking the proper steps to make sure your wishes are carried out when you die is a burden.

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

But by denying gays the right to marry, you are removing the element of choice from their situation. They have to undertake those additional legal burdens whether they want to marry or not. Isn't that depriving them of a liberty? Isn't the right to choose to marry or not a liberty?

I never stated I support denying gays the right to marry.. I said the federal government should have no involvement in the decision and that its a state regulatory issue. If you want to get married, get a marriage license in a state that allows it. You've been denied no liberty because getting married isnt a right. its a priviledge.. I equate this to a drivers license.. Do you have a right to drive, even though you've purchased a car? Hell, many dont even have the right to carry a gun, and now all of a sudden marriage is a right? Please...

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by ditchlights
The only reason the APA removed that classification in 1973 was to please pro-homosexual political activists, not to be in line with science.

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

This is a very old lie that's been repeated by social Neanderthals for decades. It's based on a conspiracy theory, and like all conspiracy theories, there's no proof to back it up, and therefore, it's a crock of crap.

Been a while since I've seen anyone trying to prove the OP's assertion. Mostly they use the words of AFA, FRC and the discredited Paul Cameron for their "proof" and get angry when those of us who fight for equality refuse to accept their "proof".

[lmkcin]

wait, why is this still being debated?

Oh, because you Christian fundies are nucking futs, thats why.

Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional. That's the end of the discussion. It violates the 14th amendment. SCOTUS would conclude the same thing, even if it was a 5-4 vote.

Time and time again your arguments have been proven to be wrong.

Just admit you are bigoted, ingnorant homophobes. Because WE all know you are.

[jaada]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Then I guess you should be for the removal of the word "marriage" from the law. If you're so worried about the damn word "marriage", then this is the best compromise: Straight and gay people alike can get "civil unions" in order to gain the legal benefits. You can get "married" in a church, but it won't have legal benefits until you get a "civil union" with the government.

Really, the only difference is what word is used, so long as equal rights are recognized.

I don't know how people say they care about the 'sanctity of marriage' anyway, when they don't do anything about the high divorce rate, marriages to strangers done by Elvis impersonators in Vegas. No, but gays getting to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense, that boils their blood!

no i still believe marriage is between a man and a women. wont change my mind on that one. but i do think that gay people should be protected as well.

[lmkcin]

Originally Posted by ditchlights

Everybody knows that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason the APA removed that classification in 1973 was to please pro-homosexual political activists, not to be in line with science. To argue differently would be an open admittance that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Since gays vehemently deny that stance, we'll stick with the original diagnosis.

Before you go bashing and calling me a bible thumping neocon, remind yourself that Christians believe that all homosexuality is a learned behavior. I recognize that it is a mental deficiency acquired in the womb before birth. Saying that gays should not be allowed to wed would be identical to saying that the mentally retarded cannot marry. I personally believe that that would be unconstitutional.

But that does not mean I am in favor of it.

hey, Christian...speak for yourself. this Christian and no other Christian, Jew or hell Muslim I know, believe this either.

where's the proof is IS a mental anything? Oh wait there isn't any.

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by TXboomerang

Marriage is not in the constitution ANYWHERE, so I do not see why conservatives think government should regulate marriage. Well, I know why, it is religion mostly. But I have yet to see any conservative give a sound reason why a person who believes in small government should support the government telling people what they can and can't do socially as long as it does not cause harm to another.

Marriage per se may not be mentioned in the Constitution, but there are other sections and amendments that do apply. The 14th amendment is only one of them. The ninth amendment might be another.