Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional!!!

By now you've probably heard about the court ruling overturning the unconstitutional Proposition 8. But it wasn't the only big court ruling dealing with DOMA and marriage equality in the past month or so. More on the rulings, the NOM bus tour stop in Raleigh next week, the counter-rally, and the path to SCOTUS below the fold.

In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

This summer marks not only positive steps towards the end of discrimination, but also the period in which the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is doing their bus tour around the nation to protest against marriage equality. And next week they're coming right here to NC with a stop in Raleigh. More on the rulings, the counter-rally, and LGBT equality in NC below.


First, the rulings, and what happens next. Today's ruling that found Prop 8 unconstitutional is undoubtedly heading to SCOTUS, but it will have to stop at the 9th circuit court of appeals. Between this ruling, and the double ruling out of MA, SCOTUS will should be looking at this issue within 2 to 3 years. For the moment though no wedding bells will be ringing. The judge (a Bush senior appointee) has issued a temporary stay to keep this ruling from taking effect that should hold until at least Tuesday and then we'll see what happens next with the appeals and whether he extends the stay any longer.

The good news is that we are sending a very strong case on the path to SCOTUS. Lawyers Olson & Boies opposed each other in the infamous Bush v Gore case, but came together to side with equality. Undoubtedly this pair knows their way around SCOTUS and had SCOTUS in mind when making their arguments. Likewise the judge involved seemed to have appeals in mind as well. My understanding from following all of the news today is that while findings of law can be contested, findings of fact are not as easy to dispute in appeals, and this ruling was full of findings of fact (about 80 of them). So in many ways this is one of the strongest cases we could send to SCOTUS.

The decision by Vaughn Walker to have a full fledged trial with a full evidentiary record was inspired and put the Perry case in a unique position compared to how such issues are usually handled on submitted pleadings and argument. This one had a real trial with a real record; that makes a ton of difference for the appeal.

Appellate courts cannot just substitute their views for that of the trial court when there is an evidentiary record, findings of fact and conclusions of law like this, where it is much easier to do so if it has been decided by preliminary injunctive relief, motions or on the pleadings.

And where is the NC connection you might ask? Well other than Burr being pro-constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality and Marshall being in favor of DOMA repeal (vote Marshall!), as I noted earlier, the National Organization for Marriage is busing into North Carolina to rally in our capital. They make no efforts to hide the fact that they are outsiders busing in:

Check out these videos of a previous stop on the tour.

NOM's protest:

The counter rally:

If you don't want signs like this (from a previous stop in their summer bus tour) to go unchallenged, check out some info on counter rally events on Tuesday August 10th around 12 to 1pm here, here, and here. After Prop 8 passed we saw protests around the country, including right here in NC (protest outside the governors mansion pictured above). Luckily the NOM bus tour protests have been pretty small for the most part, so we don't have to have another turn out of around 1,400 people to out rally them. Some of their rallies have been as small as 20 people. So if you can load up in your car with a friend or two and make your way to the counter-rally on Tuesday that could easily be the tipping point.

Also check out Equality NC's new blog, Celebrating Our Families, put up this summer whose theme runs directly counter to the hate spread by NOM.


Vaughn Walker

He's a hero, and is undoubtedly being subjected to all kinds of acclaim and grief because of this ruling. When you consider the variety of people who occupy either side of this issue, it is not difficult to imagine the many, many ways that he is being praised and damned.

But whatever happens going forward, he is a hero for this decision.

The solution to gay marriage

is a couple of hangman's nooses? Good Lord. How can any decent human being align themselves with such thinking.

Its the Iranian Solution too

not just a NOM rally sign.

And it'll be the Ugandan solution too if the American religious right has anything to say about it as they continue their efforts to dehumanize and classify gays & lesbians as not fully equal citizens/people:

Anti-gay laws in Africa are product of American religious exports, say activists

Given top billing at the event hosted by the FLN was Scott Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, an American conservative Christian group from California, and a Holocaust revisionist whose controversial book The Pink Swastika names homosexuals as “the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities.”

Weeks after the Kampala conference in March last year — which followed a meeting between the speakers and members of the Ugandan Parliament — a clause appeared in the country’s draft Anti-Homosexuality Bill recommending life imprisonment for certain homosexual “crimes” or, for “serial offenders”, the death sentence.

To Mr Kaoma, an Anglican priest from Zambia who is project director of Political Research Associates — a Massachusetts-based progressive think-tank — it was further evidence of how America’s Christian Right has stoked intolerance to homosexuality in Africa.

After a 16-month investigation, during which he interviewed scores of witnesses in Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria, Mr Kaoma concluded that Africa’s anti-gay crackdowns are, at least in part, “made in the USA”.

“Through their extensive communications networks in Africa, social welfare projects, Bible schools and educational materials, US religious conservatives warn of the dangers of homosexuals, and present themselves as the true representatives of US evangelicalism,” he wrote in Globalising the Culture Wars: US Conservatives, African Churches and Homophobia, a damning report on the issue.

He told The Times: “We are not dismissing the fact that some of the money they send for Africa is going to good use. What we are concerned about is that the people who receive it are being trained in a conservative ideology. It will be like, ‘If I give you this, you must dance to my tune’.”

The results are becoming clear. In Malawi, where this week an openly gay couple were sentenced to 14 years in prison with hard labour, and across the continent, gays and lesbians face lives of increasing dread. It is hard to underplay the depth of anti-gay sentiment expressed in Africa. “Everyone is looking over their shoulders,” said Mwangi, a gay man from Nairobi, who did not want his family name published. “People don’t even want to come to this bar now because they know it has a reputation as a meeting place for gays. Before, no one gave a damn. Everyone came here, prostitutes, straights, the lot,” he said.

It wasn’t always like this.

Fundies of a feather, flock together

Guess where the NC Taliban will be when NOM comes to Raleigh next Tuesday.

I dare say that the Christian Action League's (yes, that's their name -- Muslim Action League, anyone?) Mark Creech will be spewing illogical ramblings about protecting marriage as NOM rolls in to and out of NC for their hour rally next week.

Dear Lord, protect me from your followers.


Marriage Equality for All!

Halleluyah! My hampster has been wanting to marry my dog for quite some time now, and this ruling goes a long way in satisfying total equality for all (to include my pets). We plan on a small ceremony with the household fish and birds. The ability to procreate (natural law) is no longer a stumbling block to selfish desires. I've even got my eye on a neighbors horse! Then again, I kinda like my vehicle too. Can I marry my vehicle or my house or is it a requirement that they be living things? What exactly should the definition of marriage be? Perhaps a simple definition of two becoming one; that way any two things can legally become one. My house can marry the neighbors house and be one large "married" compound. Perhaps everyone within a family can "marry" one another and all be considered "one"? Or, is this more about money??? hmm.... Perhaps attaining benefits, favored tax status and such. Perhaps the only true "equality" would be for our corrupt government to get completely out of the marriage business all together and leave relationships for individuals to decide.

Look into that small legal concept of consent

If your vehicle can give legal consent to marriage, then I'll back your argument to marry it.

Admins, please don't erase this fool's rantings. It should stand as a monument to idiocy.


Consent of an Inanimate Object

If your vehicle can give legal consent to marriage, then I'll back your argument to marry it.

Well, I suppose since the vehicle is my personal property, then I ought to be allowed to consent on its behalf. Hmm...

I don't know why I try, but...

You can't substitute your consent for something that never possessed consent to be given in the first place.

Think on that for a while.


Oh good, a bestiality comparison

What's that old phrase? If you don't have anything that's not horribly offensive to say, then say nothing at all? Goes something like that I'm pretty sure.

The Idiocy Stands!

And so, the blog bureaucrats have graciously allowed my idiotic rant to stand, but still no definition of what constitutes marriage. Is it simply the ability to "love"? First of all, who determines what "love" is or even if it truly exists? Or does it merely require the ability to stick an appendage into someone else's orifice? It simply appears to me that there is no definition that doesn't discriminate in one way or another, and isn't this really just about money? After all, what good is a state sanctioned activity anyway? Am I only married because some state bureaucracy claims it to be? I hardly think so. What's the big deal about a license? Why would two consenting adults need permission from any government entity? My guess, is nobody will attempt to provide a definition or claim this really isn't about money or the dreaded "acceptance" from others nonsense.

If you didn't want it to stand

you didn't have to stack it up.

And acceptance into a hospital room so that your wife doesn't have to die alone, or acceptance in adopting a child that needs a home, or acceptance into the country so that a couple isn't kept apart in separate countries, or acceptance in any other legal or quasi-legal requirement based on marriage doesn't make marriage equality just acceptance nonsense.

Of course money is part

of the equation. It's part of the equation in any marriage, isn't it?

So, what would happen in the event of your death, thinker? In the absence of a will, your wife would inherit your estate, whatever it may consist of. And whoever might want to challenge that in court, they better have several damned good reasons.

But if you were just living together unmarried, that's a different story, isn't it? Even with a will in place, your blood relatives could tie things up in court for years. Without a will? Your girlfriend might as well have never known you.

There are a lot of reasons LGBT couples would want to marry. If you actually are a "thinker", then mentally put yourself in their shoes and think. Think about all the things that you take for granted being a married heterosexual, and then think about not having those things.

And while you're at it, think about how you would feel if some jerk on the Internet compared the way you feel to that of a fucking "hampster".

Here's a helpful hint: that last mental exercise is really important if you want to be able to continue posting here.

Reason over Emotion

First of all, the hyper-sensitivity isn't necessary, and a good sense of humor goes a long way, especially when discussing such emotionally charged issues. I don't consider myself an emotional person and prefer reason over "touchy feely". Besides, who am I to determine the amount of "love" one might feel for their pets? The hampster analogy takes a bit of grey matter. Let me break it down for you. The common chord one hears is that those that oppose homosexual marriage are engaged in an act of discrimination, but aren't many, to include you, engaging in the very same practice by discriminating against those that enjoy beastiality (from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is the practice of sex between humans and animals ...)? What if those that engage in beastiality wholeheartedly desire to "marry" their animal partner? Isn't it also discrimination not to allow those that desire to "marry" a child? The point is, we all engage in discrimination, and the only decision is where one sets the bar. We can't say that the majority should decide this question, since that would automatically forbid homosexual marriage since the vast majority of the People don't favor it as shown by Proposition 8. Personally, I could care less who marries who or what as long as it doesn't violate my own liberty. To each his own. I wouldn't allow children to marry simply because they aren't old enough yet to make decisions of this magnitude. The animal thing just seems like abuse to me, and I think it would be hard not to think that it just isn't natural. Two consenting adult homosexuals marrying doesn't bother me a bit, but then again, my personal opinion is that it seems just as unnatural as beastiality. As far as wills and marriage, your comments aren't necessarily factual; remember Anna Nicole? Marriage doesn't keep anything out of court! The U.S. has 75% of the world's lawyers and they seem to stay pretty busy. I think homosexual marriage is a matter best left up to the states, not the federal government. Some states are OK with it, others won't be. One size never fits all and the level of coercion at the federal level is fast approaching the "scary" level. If California doesn't want to sanction homosexual marriage, then those desiring to marry shouldn't have any problem moving somewhere that accepts it (if, of course they are truly in love). These are certainly interesting times we live in and this empire is tracing the normal progression as every other failed empire before her. You and I are simply observers.

A good sense of humor

doesn't degrade people, thinker. If you were willing to do as I asked, put on their shoes and walk around some, you would sense that much of what you've written is hurtful, not humorous.

Y'all don't like beastiality?

What's with all the uptight anger towards those that literally love their animals? For a progressive liberal website, I'm sensing a pretty closed minded view of beastiality. Don't those that literally love their animals and perhaps would like to marry their special partner, at a minimum, deserve our compassion and understanding? Why so quick to judge as if it isn't natural or normal? Homosexual marriage between two consenting adults is an entirely different topic than someone wanting to marry their special animal friend, but one could say that the only reason People don't recognize both or either one, is due to their personal "feelings" and what they think "right" is. Perhaps it isn't "wrong" to engage in beastiality anymore than it is "wrong" to engage in homosexuality? Why allow one without allowing and recognizing the other?




is off his meds again.

Meds anyone?


is off his meds again.

And what excellent meds they are! A sovereign individual can consume whatever meds they desire so long as they don't interfere with the public safety or another's liberty.

Logic? Not so much.

Please, do not employ a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent. I know it is a practice you see often the media, but it isn't correct just because it is common. Persons who are committed to logic are likewise committed to correct use of language. In fact, adherence to logic requires adherence to proper use of language. Did you know that?

I'm beginning to suspect you might be a bit of a fraud. First, you insist upon a preference for reason over emotion but then base your entire argument on emotions. You think crowds of people are supposed to be in charge of determining what the Constitution says. Second, you tout your supposed devotion to reasoned discourse but then demonstrate an appalling lack of familiarity with some of the most fundamental concepts involved in the lawsuit and legal arguments around which this discussion is based.

Here I thought I was engaging with a *thoughtful* person, but you aren't demonstrating the skills of a thinker at all. It isn't thoughtful to dodge arguments by labelling them instead of addressing them. Nor is it thoughtful to indulge in a discussion of a topic when you claim to be unable to comprehend the basic arguments involved.

Plural Pronouns

Please, do not employ a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent. I know it is a practice you see often the media, but it isn't correct just because it is common.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I can assure you I'm "no fraud", but rather a true liberal.

It depends where you were indoctrinated

Please, do not employ a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent. I know it is a practice you see often the media, but it isn't correct just because it is common. Persons who are committed to logic are likewise committed to correct use of language. In fact, adherence to logic requires adherence to proper use of language. Did you know that?

At least in the early 90's there was a strong movement at UNC-CH towards gender-neutral language . They taught us to use "they" and "their" in generic use as opposed to the more common masculine pronouns such as "he" or "his."

I've already addressed this upthread

Your llama does not possess legal standing to consent to marriage -- just as your vehicle doesn't.

If a cop comes to the door and asks for permission to search your house, your pet gecko can't give consent.

Read up on basic legal concepts, THINK, then come back and play.


Animals can consent

Whales, dolphins, the family dog, etc. are all considered intelligent and perhaps can consent. Is it rape anytime animals procreate? Consent is a natural process. Perhaps in the absence of struggle, there is consent? The problem isn't whether or not the animal consents, but perhaps merely our definition of what legally constitutes consent. It may be time to bring our laws into the 21st century and revise what legally constitutes "consent". Just as homosexuals weren't allowed by law to marry, perhaps our ideas of "consent" must also be reconsidered.

No, they cannot consent.

An animal cannot "consent" within the legal meaning of the term. Nor do they have rights or responsibilities under the law, notwithstanding slogans that suggest otherwise. There are laws that protect animals from harm, but those laws do not endow the animals with rights. Rather, they regulate human behavior.

But do continue to compare gays to whales, dolphins and the family dog. It is interesting to me that you feel driven to express your loathing in this manner. Given the line of reasoning you are pursuing, children "consent" to being sexually molested.

The problem isn't our legal definition of consent. The problem is that you refuse to recognize the humanity of homosexual men and women and the inhumanity of arguments comparing them to animals and pedophiliacs.

What comparison?

The only person attempting to compare is you. I've merely been addressing the place of discrimination and who determines where we place the line. You are attempting to make the "silly" comparison between humans and animals. If legal standing is important, then those supporting homosexual marriage are in deep trouble. The issue raised by me was merely where we decide to discriminate and who determines that. You could attempt to address the topic at hand rather than engage in nonsensical "labelling" of someone you've never met and know nothing about.

Is gibberish your strategy?

You made the comparison numerous times. It's odd that you would deny it, when the posts are still available for review. You haven't "merely" addressed the place of discrimination and where the line is placed; you haven't addressed it at all. Do you not understand what it means to have "standing" in a court of law? Do you now understand the concept of minority status?

Apparently, you are comfortable using terms such as "standing" and "consent" without any appreciation of their meaning. Again, your lack of familiarity with the Constitution and its role in our legal system is somewhat shocking. Why is it that you feel so comfortable suggesting that I address the issues at hand when all you do is dodge those issues by labelling them "babble" or announcing that you're "baffled?"

Why would someone who is serious about discourse be so anxious to avoid actual discussion?

I can't believe this kind of strategy got you out of college.

Legal standing?

Now, we're suddenly defenders of the all important, never changing legal standing?! Interesting... And silly me, I thought it was illegal for homosexuals to marry. Is not that legal standing as well? Or do we simply get to pick and chose what we'd like to stand and what we don't like?

"as unnatural as beastiality"

Again with this?

I don't consider comparing my marriage to bestiality having a sense of humor. I could get into the whole its natural its in the animal kingdom too thing, but I'm so tired of conservatives comparing my marriage to raping an animal that I don't have the steam to go round for round here again.

There are places where they promote violence against gay people using such rhetoric. I'm asking that if we continue this conversation that we do it without such horrible comparisons.

then those desiring to marry shouldn't have any problem moving somewhere

Yeah, because when you're consistently discriminated against you are even more likely to have the finances to easily pack up and move to somewhere that doesn't?

These are certainly interesting times we live in and this empire is tracing the normal progression as every other failed empire before her. You and I are simply observers.

What in the world does that mean in this context?

Be sure to save your headline

Maybe we can find a way to have it as an automatic reply following your comments!


You'll find many here in complete agreement that the government should be out of the business of sanctioning marriage, except to the extent that contractual agreements require the rule of law to enforce. But since the government IS in the business of sanctioning marriage, the issue is on the table. No amount of ncWishfulThinking will make the slightest bit of difference in practical terms.

I know practical terms aren't your strong suit, but for others, the questions are real and pressing.

Contract versus Tax Breaks

It is a legal matter. The interference from the government I was attempting to convey wasn't the contract part, but rather the tax incentive part. The government should stay out of the tax break business altogether. Why should marriage be given a break by Uncle Sugar? Marriage is generally more efficient than two separate individuals and the government shouldn't be playing "favorites".

The Religious Right

demonizes gay couples as trying to destroy the intuition of marriage all the time, in fact they are busing into our state in 3 days to do just that, so it is entirely unreasonable to expect the marriage equality movement to become advocates for your “civil marriages for none, contracts for all” cause. Can you imagine how much worse that would get if we were literally trying to get rid of the intuition of marriage?

In the mean time, marriage is a determining factor in so many legal & quasi-legal situations, and the word makes the difference between dying along in a hospital, in couples being kept apart in different countries, in some cases needing different contracts for every state you might visit just to try to approximate the protections of marriage, in being kicked out of your own home you’ve lived in with your spouse for years if your spouse passes away & if your spouse’s name happens to be the person whose name is on the deed & if their family disapproves & decides to take the house for themselves which I’ve read about happening far too many times. There are so many different ways that it is more than just the financial burden you try to paint it to be, but it is certainly that too in terms of being able to buy health insurance or car insurance together or in paying taxes or what have you.

When the “marriages for none, contracts for all” movement you are espousing finally removes marriage as an intuition, then maybe all these other legal and quasi-legal situations and requirements that are based on marriage will get cleared up.

But until then the lack of marriage equality is ruining lives, and opposing marriage equality on libertarian grounds isn’t helping. Can you at least agree, that as long as the institution of civil marriage exists that there should be no difference in access to marriage between gay couples & heterosexual ones?

Can you at least agree, that

Can you at least agree, that as long as the institution of civil marriage exists that there should be no difference in access to marriage between gay couples & heterosexual ones?

Personally, I could care less if homosexuals want to marry, live together, or anything else, as long as it doesn't effect my liberty. The problem isn't "marriage", the problem is why is the government involved as much as they are? This is clearly a state issue and why should a single individual clothed in a black robe dictate the desire of the People? If the People decide to allow it, then so be it. If they don't, so be it. Just because one decides to attend law school and join the bar doesn't mean a thing to me. It is always interesting to consider their reasoning, but other than that, who cares, and it should only be another point of consideration, not a binding decision.

Speaking of reason over emotion

Whenever I read a comment from an apparently intelligent poster that contains something as extreme as the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, I can't resist wondering what psychological condition produced it. Ncthinker declared he prefers rational to "touchie feelie" exchange, but the comparison was extreme, which suggests hostility, and the argument, that recognition of gays' right to marry should be up to the states (i.e., majority rule as expressed by voters) is essentially rooted in *feelings.*

I know that it is a cliche to say that those persons most extreme in their expression of antipathy toward homosexuality are reflecting an inner disturbance resulting from attraction rather than repulsion to the act, but examples of such persons in the news these days are plentiful enough that it isn't unreasonable to suspect the truth of the suspicion. It is otherwise difficult for me to understand why an argument that is supposed to be "rational" would include such an overtly hostile expression. The hostility emerges again in the declaration that such a comparison should be considered humorous, and then again in the declaration that this is "clearly a state issue," as though there were no question of human rights involved (as though the humanity and rights of homosexuals is comparable to how we regulate the sale of alcohol), and there it is again in the phrasing "as long as it doesn't effect [sic] my liberty." That is, It is of no matter to this person whether human beings are treated as inherently inferior based upon their being homosexual.

A definite preference for the superiority of "feelings" to rationality is expressed in the argument that the states should decide the issue. That is, civil rights for gays is a matter for a majority of people to decide how they *feel* about it, not a matter of the protection of what ought to be recognized as an inalienable human right.

It reminds me of how segregationists wanted us to accept the idea that blacks should be denied civil rights unless the "desire of the people" in the states deemed otherwise. At least back in the 19th century, we had pseudo-science to assure us that blacks were inherently inferior and could not handle the responsibility of being given freedom.

But what is the argument against acknowledging the right of homosexuals to marry?
The only one I've heard over and over again is that it is immoral. And where does that concept come from except the Bible? Since I think we all understand that the Bible does not provide legal justification for discrimination (though of course, it was used to support slavery), we have to toss that one. We're left again with a "reason" that has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with how someone *feels* about homosexuality, just as states rights advocates once urged that blacks should be denied entry and service into public places because of how voters "felt" about their presence.

Failure to address the question

Again, as usual, nobody wants to address the issue, but instead engage in some sort of pyschobabble nonsense in lieu of logic. Where does one draw the line? Is it not discrimination not to recognize marriage for those that engage in beastiality or desire to marry a child? Why is the line where it is? What makes the position of where We the People decide to place the discrimination line? Is it what the majority in any particular state decide or does some other factor come into play? These are all questions that nobody seems inclined to attempt to answer. How this topic has anything at all to do with the color of one's skin, eyes, hair or anything else completely baffles the mind. I think what you may be attempting to articulate is that the "majority" often make mistakes. But, of course, we all know that. Humans make mistakes whether they be individuals, groups, a government body, a judge, or in any other man-made organization. Obviously, we discriminate in a whole variety of ways in order to maintain a civil society that works for all. Again, what is the best process to determine where we discriminate and where we don't? Again, I don't see why anyone would care if homosexuals get married unless, of course their is some sort of wealth transfer that takes place as a result of it? Why are so many upset about illegal aliens? The answer is simple. It is because of our welfare state. If there were no way for an illegal alien to take money from Citizens, nobody would care. We'd probably be applauding the inexpensive competitive labor force. Perhaps we ought to follow the money trail to get a better answer as to why some would be against expanding the definition of marriage.


You just put that song in my head. Thanks. ;/


You just put that song in my head. Thanks. ;/

Your welcome. I'm here to entertain in any way I'm able.

Your failure to address the question

Please point out where anything I said was illogical. Please point out where you address the points I made instead of calling them "babble" and claiming you're just too baffled to get a handle on it. It surprises me that someone who calls him/herself "ncthinker" would be at such a loss to argue a point.

No, I'm not articulating the concept that the majority often makes mistakes. I'm articulating legal theory. I honestly didn't think it was so far over your head.

Please note that one of the frequently cited purposes of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority. Hence the fear of so many Conservatives that gays will succeed in being recognized as victims of discrimination. That's why the "bullying" bill "debated" by the General Assembly was so heated. Or did that just fly right past you? What is so very difficult about these concepts for you? They've been around a long, long time.

It's a pity that your mind is so completely baffled by these points, since they've been extensively addressed in legal opinions, lawsuits, and countless articles in mainstream media.

And while I may have thought you much better read than you seem to be on the issue, I don't think my statements were unclear. Maybe you could use a brush up course on civics. If "majority rule" were the law of the land, we'd dispense with courts and decide that the Constitution means whatever a majority of people think it means.

Homosexual Law?

The problem may be your selective understanding of the Law of the Land. I only know of three jurisdictions of law; common, admiralty, and equity. Where does one find that the People have delegated to the federal government the right to "protect" certain classes of People from others? This certainly isn't common law. Aren't all People supposed to have the same rights under the law? Where does one find that certain People have "protected" status or "special" favor? This is not Constitutional and the concept can't be found anywhere in Common Law. You obviously seem to prefer government granted watered-down civil liberties to inalienable rights. Again, I could care less if homosexuals marry or do anything else as long as it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket. I also won't engage in silly name-calling or make disparaging remarks, since I can find no benefit to such behavior.

The Schwarzenegger Suprise

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:

“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges

In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California after a federal ruling that the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The Republican governor filed his brief with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker before a Friday deadline to submit arguments on whether to continue a stay of Walker's decision against Proposition 8.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

I'm a bit surprised that Schwarzenegger has been so pro-marriage equality of late given that he vetoed marriage equality more than once after it was passed by the state legislature. I guess this part explains it though:

Schwarzenegger has vetoed state bills that passed the Legislature legalizing same-sex marriage - reasoning at that time that courts should decide the matter

Other Supreme Courts

All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages

MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital


Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses' insurance policies.

I thought with this thread being about a court striking down DOMA, that it was an appropriate enough place to share this ruling by the Supreme Court in Mexico that happened yesterday. Another Supreme Court also had an interesting ruling yesterday:

Sala IV dice no al referendo sobre uniones gais

Para tal efecto, 6 magistrados estimaron que se trata de materia legislativa y no electoral -aquí se unió a la mayoría el magistrado Castillo que declaró sin lugar el recurso-, por cuanto, se trata del ejercicio material de tal función por el pueblo y que al TSE lo que se le encomendó fue, únicamente, la organización, dirección y fiscalización del proceso, circunstancia que la mayoría de 6 magistrados estimaron que no la convierte en una materia electoral.

Their point being something along the lines of equal rights for a minority should not be subject to a public vote of the masses, as it was going to be in a few months, and instead should be up to the judicial branch to figure out what the just thing to do is.

Will marriages resume in CA tomorrow?

Will Marriages Resume Tomorrow?

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker will issue a Thursday morning ruling on whether to stay a decision in the Proposition 8 federal case pending appeal, according to a late Wednesday e-mail from the court. The ruling will be issued between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. Pacific Time.

So we'll know something by 3pm tomorrow. I had originally planned to get married out there, and then had to re-plan for MA. Ultimately MA was a solid decision b/c its had marriage equality longer than any other state and thus it was much more secure, but I had family in CA and would have really enjoyed that experience too, so this ruling is kind of personal.

Thought I'd share a new poll here too:

Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?

Aug. 6-10 2010

Yes 52%
No 46%
No opinion 2%

It kind of backs up this older poll:

What the majority thinks?

Could someone please tell me why it matters what the majority thinks? Does this somehow make something right or wrong? If there's nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, why would it matter whether or not it has majority approval. If it doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket, who cares?

A deafening silence!

Here's what was brought up, but never addressed by the peanut gallery:

1) Society discriminates. Even those supposedly against discrimination of homosexual marriage selectively chose to discriminate against those things they are "personally" opposed to, but will be the first to engage in name-calling if others do the same to them. Why isn't beastiality legal? Why isn't sex with minors legal? We could go on and on. Why is the so-called discrimination line where it is? Who decides? Who should decide? Why is the opinion of the majority important? Why does it matter whether or not the majority accepts homosexual marriage?

2) Where in our Constitution does one find the concept of "favored or special status"? Common law does not provide a "special set of rules" for certain classes. Each individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property. Where have We the People ever delegated to the federal government the right to protect certain groups or interests from others? Aren't we all supposed to have the same protections and liberty regardless of our race, religion, ethnicity, sex, etc. etc.? Only a slave needs a master to provide privileges and permission. Homosexuality neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket therefore a true liberal could care less. If someone violates the liberty of a homosexual, they should be dealt with no differently than if they were violating the liberty of a heterosexual.

Arrests following Prop 8 Protest of Stay

On the day hundreds of gay and lesbian couples statewide planned to obtain their long-awaited marriage licenses, a crowd of about 50 people gathered at the county clerk's office Thursday to protest a federal judge's stay of a federal ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Three people were taken away in plastic handcuffs by sheriff's deputies early in the demonstration and an additional six people were removed later. A deputy said they were detained for blocking access to a county office.

Tony and Tyler Dylan-Hyde left the county offices after being told they could not receive a marriage license saying they were going to spend the rest of the day pursuing other legal avenues.

Three heterosexual couples approached for their scheduled appointments this morning. The group refused to move and allow the couples access to the office.


The group shouted: "We shall not be moved. Gay, straight, black white; marriage is a civil right." Two members of the group said they were disappointed they could not get married today.

"It’s something at first that you kind of assume is going to be the case," said Michael Anderson, a 28-year-old who planned to get his marriage license today with his partner of nine years Brian Baumgardner. "But after awhile, you get tired of waiting."

Jan Cadwell, a spokesperson for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, said about 45 deputies were deployed in the mobile field force squad used to arrest protesters.

I do feel for the happy couples who got delayed by this, but then I think that is kind of the point of civil disobedience to force attention on the issue by making waves... and at least they wont have to wait years/decades/indefinite amount of time to get married.

Still doesn't compare to the level of disobedience of the recent blocking of traffic here:

Many more fairly recent civil disobedience pics can be found here (mostly focused on DADT repeal, but some DOMA repeal/ENDA etc):