Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Worrying about hurting people is so like a woman. GWB had his eyes on the REAL prize: the power to fuck over everyone you don't like.

whereas Bill Clinton had his eyes on a different prize: the power to fuck everyone

Obama, thankfully, has his eyes on what really counts: scaring the shit out of white people.

YES

The article is weird, the comments...weirder.

And here we go, it seems.

so how many more appeals before this gets to the SC...? just the 9th Circuit?

Yup.

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.

oh man that second sentence

Some more language here

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.

awe man :)

IT IS SO ORDERED <3

ENGAGE

Can't wait for Maggie Gallagher's response.

I'd be fine if it was alcohol poisoning.

Ted Olson is probably not a popular man at the Heritage Foundation right now.

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

* "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

* "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."

* "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

* "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

* "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

* "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

* "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Similarly via Ambinder:

Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He evaluates as credible witnesses the panel of experts who testified against Proposition 8, and finds fault with the credentials of several witnesses who testified against same-sex marriage, including David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values.

"Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight," Walker writes. "Blankenhorn gave absolutely no explanation why
manifestations of the deinstitutionalization of marriage would be exacerbated (and not, for example, ameliorated) by the presence of marriage for same-sex couples. His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered."

Here are the relevant facts he finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate
3. 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.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human
history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence"
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come.

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right

Holy shit, they don't say anything about my owning a CD collection in the Constitution either. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

http://lawdork.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/clarence-thomas.jpg

lol I went to the AFA site to see if they'd thrown a fit yet - not yet, but they're pretty busy boycotting EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD

:)

I do like how Walker basically said Blankenhorn was a useless dumbass.

those 13 FACTS! bam, bam, bam.

yeah like this kicker:

"6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being."

Off-topic, but the censoring on the AFA's website makes me LOL

Sears is currently offering giant posters of total nud**y on its website.

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

was sorta waiting for this

yeah like this kicker:

"6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being."

I agree that this is deeply problematic

like, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or in born or whatever should have zero bearing on how it is legally addressed.

moreover, "answering" that question wont change the minds of haters---if its something essential to a person ("genetic"), it can be made pathological. if its a choice, its a bad one. etc

also ur enshrining a really problematic idea in law

Not shocked of course, but lol @ the AFA definition of "graphic total nudity".

I'm sorry "graphic total nud**y".

like, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or in born or whatever should have zero bearing on how it is legally addressed.

While I am inclined to agree w/you, most people I know did not choose their orientation.

The judge is specifically refuting testimony by pro-Prop 8 lawyers, one of whose claims was the inviolability of heterosexual marriage vs the protean nature of homosexual relationships.

in other words, Walker wasn't composing aphorisms, plax.

sorta---not a lawyer, but note that it doesn't localize a persons sexuality (its in the genes!), nor does it render it immutable. it states that it is fundamental, which could be interpreted as "important enough to someones life/lifestyle to be given legal consideration"

good thing imo

Finding gbx wholly OTM.

From the AFA's condemnation of Sears:

"Some of them depict groups of people, lesbians and others engaged in ***ual activities."

First off, "people, lesbians and others"???

Secondly, "***ual activities"? Casual? Actual? What?

sexual

Searsual

ritual

holy shit: "Rejecting several requests by AFA to remain neutral in the culture war, The Home Depot has..."

sorta---not a lawyer, but note that it doesn't localize a persons sexuality (its in the genes!), nor does it render it immutable. it states that it is fundamental, which could be interpreted as "important enough to someones life/lifestyle to be given legal consideration"

good thing imo

― pies. (gbx), Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:59 PM (2 minutes ago)

idk if you rephrase that as "race is a fundamental characteristic of a human being" then it immediately complicates things. I think the more you essentialise as internal what are really external social characteristics, the more you objectify in the name of some sort of humanism. Like I think there's a kind of implicit heteronormative bias in saying something like this, you turn sexuality (which is what exactly? is there a definition of that because that might appease me) into something that essentially differentiates and characterises.

I remember my (gay) cousin being totally depressed by the Prop 8 vote, but by way of reassurance I suggested it was a mislaid strategy on the part of gay marriage opponents that would just fast track the issue to the Supreme Court. And I can't imagine the Supreme Court as it stands (sits?) today coming up with a circuitous way to deny rights. Well, I mean, sure, I can imagine them trying, but I think even the more conservative members would have to work hard.

I think I've asked this before, but where do the right wing libertarians like Rand Paul land on this issue?

I'm not being flippant, plax (I hope), when I say that in law winning a case is not like writing a successful essay for a gender studies course. The outcomes are different!

"graphic total nud**y"

should be iltmi board description imo

plax, I'll still take it since it makes the ruling (on the Defendants' assertions) more easily defensible at the 9th circuit.