Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Full decision

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08 ... cision.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED."

Suck a big fat one, shitdog and other resident homophobes.

All homophobes can go die.

Cap'n Cat wrote:All homophobes can go die.

so can non homophobes...equal protection under the law and all....

yet again the will of the people is overidden by liberal fags. one day the people will have had enough and it will be off to the camps for these worthless, schmeckle nuzzling, felching, hot karl giving, gaywads.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:All homophobes can go die.

so can non homophobes...equal protection under the law and all....

Man, STFU, you!

Grizalltheway wrote:

Suck a big fat one.

nothing you haven't done before i am sure.

citdog wrote:yet again the will of the people is overidden by liberal fags. one day the people will have had enough and it will be off to the camps for these worthless, schmeckle nuzzling, felching, hot karl giving, gaywads.

Jon,
In PMs Cit and I just finished exchanging, he said he would go to your wedding as my guest if I was invited. He's full of hot air and is happy for you and Alex secretly.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

citdog wrote:yet again the will of the people is overidden by liberal fags. one day the people will have had enough and it will be off to the camps for these worthless, schmeckle nuzzling, felching, hot karl giving, gaywads.

Jon,
In PMs Cit and I just finished exchanging, he said he would go to your wedding as my guest if I was invited. He's full of happy air and is hot for you and Alex secretly.

FIFY

Cap'n Cat wrote:

citdog wrote:yet again the will of the people is overidden by liberal fags. one day the people will have had enough and it will be off to the camps for these worthless, schmeckle nuzzling, felching, hot karl giving, gaywads.

Jon,
In PMs Cit and I just finished exchanging, he said he would go to your wedding as my guest if I was invited. He's full of hot air and is happy for you and Alex secretly.

tell everyone EXACTLY what i said

This decision will probably be upheld by the Ninth Circuit, but it faces a 5-4 reversal before the US Supreme Court, unless something happens to Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts or Alito before then.

I have a feeling that this decision and the timing by which it will reach the US Supreme Court renders a second Obama term unlikely. This judge just held that there is a right to gay marriage protected by the US Constitution. That is going to bring out a social conservative backlash and they will be many, many single issue voters casting votes in the 2010 congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election.

Very interesting that the State of California stipulated that "[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage."

Also interesting that the State argued that "Proposition 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them."

Most interesting to me was that the Court found that California has no rational basis for Prop 8.

JoltinJoe wrote:This decision will probably be upheld by the Ninth Circuit, but it faces a 5-4 reversal before the US Supreme Court, unless something happens to Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts or Alito before then.

There is no rational or legal basis to overturn this decision. If they do, they will go down next to the Dred Scott justices as the worst in US history.

And if the 9th circuit upholds, look for Alex and I to apply for a marriage license IN ARIZONA...

JoltinJoe wrote:This decision will probably be upheld by the Ninth Circuit, but it faces a 5-4 reversal before the US Supreme Court, unless something happens to Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts or Alito before then.

I have a feeling that this decision and the timing by which it will reach the US Supreme Court renders a second Obama term unlikely. This judge just held that there is a right to gay marriage protected by the US Constitution. That is going to bring out a social conservative backlash and they will be many, many single issue voters casting votes in the 2010 congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election.

Kennedy is definitely the swing-vote.

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:This decision will probably be upheld by the Ninth Circuit, but it faces a 5-4 reversal before the US Supreme Court, unless something happens to Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts or Alito before then.

There is no rational or legal basis to overturn this decision. If they do, they will go down next to the Dred Scott justices as the worst in US history.

But the US Supreme Court has never accepted homosexuals as a "suspect" class entitled to strict scrutiny of laws which impact them; and it rarely overturns laws when it applies a rational basis test. danefan is right: this judge did something pretty radical when he struck down a civil law for not having any "rational basis."

danefan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:This decision will probably be upheld by the Ninth Circuit, but it faces a 5-4 reversal before the US Supreme Court, unless something happens to Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts or Alito before then.

I have a feeling that this decision and the timing by which it will reach the US Supreme Court renders a second Obama term unlikely. This judge just held that there is a right to gay marriage protected by the US Constitution. That is going to bring out a social conservative backlash and they will be many, many single issue voters casting votes in the 2010 congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election.

Kennedy is definitely the swing-vote.

He did say in Lawrence that state laws criminalizing sodomy had no "rational basis," but he quite obviously emphasized the criminality of the prohibition. Reading between the lines, I think he was preparing himself for the day when he had to distinguish other gay right issues.

dbackjon wrote:And if the 9th circuit upholds, look for Alex and I to apply for a marriage license IN ARIZONA...

Wow, you need a lawyer for that case?? I'm good and counsel fees in civil rights actions get paid by the state if you win.

JoltinJoe wrote:

danefan wrote:
Kennedy is definitely the swing-vote.

He did say in Lawrence that state laws criminalizing sodomy had no "rational basis," but he quite obviously emphasized the criminality of the prohibition. Reading between the lines, I think he was preparing himself for the day when he had to distinguish other gay right issues.

Prop 8, in essence, criminalized gay marriage...

JoltinJoe wrote:

dbackjon wrote:And if the 9th circuit upholds, look for Alex and I to apply for a marriage license IN ARIZONA...

Wow, you need a lawyer for that case?? I'm good and counsel fees in civil rights actions get paid by the state if you win.

I just might

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the 9th Circuit upholds the verdict, Gay Marriage would be legal in every state covered by the 9th Circuit.

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Wow, you need a lawyer for that case?? I'm good and counsel fees in civil rights actions get paid by the state if you win.

I just might

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the 9th Circuit upholds the verdict, Gay Marriage would be legal in every state covered by the 9th Circuit.

Not per se ... but it would create grounds for any affected party within Ninth Circuit to challenge a state law which restricted his or her right to marry a same spouse partner, and the decision would be binding. I can't see any way for another court to reason around the Ninth Circuit's decision, assuming the Ninth Circuit adopts the same reasoning as the District Court and does not limit it in any way. So it would seem, under these circumstances, that any such law would have to be stricken.

Joe - do you get the impression from the decision that the State of California's attorney's really screwed themselves on this one?

And how, proceduraly, does this effect them moving forward? They're going to be bound by the evidence they presented in the district court as to the application of and historical perspective, but from a practical standpoint, do you think Kennedy will even care?

We know that Kennedy doesn't even think he's bound by US law alone, so I wonder what his take on this will be.