Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Red Mosquito, my libido
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 91597
Location: Sector 7-G
Prop 8 in CA struck down:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1

_________________
It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
cutuphalfdead wrote:



Image

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:33 am
Posts: 35357
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Gender: Male
cutuphalfdead wrote:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

_________________
Winner, RM all-time NBA tourney. :D

Winner, 2008 US Pearl Jam fantasy league. :D

Everton FC: 3-1-5
Anaheim Webbed D's: 5-6-2
USC Football: 7-2
Denver Broncos: 3-5


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Image

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
This is really good news. This type of bigotry has no place in the 21st century.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:



Image


Huskaroos!!!

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
Banned from the Pit
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:36 am
Posts: 18
Location: Vancouver
Gender: Female
Hopefully the ruling stays!
Prop 8 was such a joke.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Image

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:21 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Hey, mods. Can we get the Prop 8 ruling split out to a new thread? This is a BIG FUCKING DEAL, and deserves its own thread.


On that note, some highlights from the text of the opinion!!!

p. 9 wrote:
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.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar
Master of Meh
 Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm
Posts: 13226
Location: Adelaide, AUS
Cool fucking news.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
p. 22 wrote:
Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam testified about his role
in the Proposition 8 campaign. Tam spent substantial time, effort
and resources campaigning for Proposition 8. As of July 2007, Tam
was working with Protect Marriage to put Proposition 8 on the
November 2008 ballot. Tr 1900:13-18. Tam testified that he is the
secretary of the America Return to God Prayer Movement, which
operates the website “1man1woman.net.” Tr 1916:3-24.
1man1woman.net encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on
grounds that homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest
children, Tr 1919:3-1922:21, and because Proposition 8 will cause
states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands, Tr 1928:6-13.
Tam
identified NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy
of Homosexuality) as the source of information about homosexuality,
because he “believe[s] in what they say.” Tr 1939:1-9. Tam
identified “the internet” as the source of information connecting
same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest. Tr 1957:2-12.
Protect
Marriage relied on Tam and, through Tam, used the website
1man1woman.net as part of the Protect Marriage Asian/Pacific
Islander outreach. Tr 1976:10-15; PX2599 (Email from Sarah Pollo,
Account Executive, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Aug 22, 2008)
attaching meeting minutes).

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
p. 24 wrote:
For the reasons stated in the sections that follow, the
evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises
underlying proponents’ proffered rationales for Proposition 8. An
initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect.
The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified
scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the
voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must
find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when
those determinations enact into law classifications of persons.
Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will
the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice,
no matter how large the majority that shares that view.
The
evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8
finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is
beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their
representatives.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
p. 39 wrote:
Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an
expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject
to a traditional peer-review process, Tr 2733:2-2735:4, he has no
degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the
importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood
and family structure, Tr 2735:15-2736:9, and his study of the
effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and
ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed
person about it,” Tr 2736:13-2740:3. See also Doc #285
(plaintiffs’ motion in limine). Plaintiffs argue that
Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or
discernible methodology,” Doc #285 at 25, and that Blankenhorn’s
conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected
quotations from articles and reports, id at 26.
The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved
the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s
opinions. Tr 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that
Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony
that should be given essentially no weight.



Hahaha! Fucking owned!!!

p. 44 wrote:
Blankenhorn gave no explanation of the methodology
that led him to his definition of marriage other than his review of
others’ work. The court concludes that Blankenhorn’s proposed
definition of marriage is “connected to existing data only by the
ipse dixit” of Blankenhorn and accordingly rejects it. See Joiner,
522 US at 146.

pp. 44-45 wrote:
To the extent Blankenhorn believes
that same-sex marriage is both a cause and a symptom of
deinstitutionalization, his opinion is tautological. Moreover, no
credible evidence supports Blankenhorn’s conclusion that same-sex
marriage could lead to the other manifestations of
deinstitutionalization.

p. 45 wrote:
Blankenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage, DIX0956,
lists numerous consequences of permitting same-sex couples to
marry, some of which are the manifestations of
deinstitutionalization listed above. Blankenhorn explained that
the list of consequences arose from a group thought experiment in
which an idea was written down if someone suggested it.
Tr 2844:1-
12; DIX0956 at 202. Blankenhorn’s group thought experiment began
with the untested assumption that “gay marriage, like almost any
major social change, would be likely to generate a diverse range of
consequences.” DIX0956 at 202. The group failed to consider that
recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples might lead only to
minimal, if any, social consequences.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
p. 53 wrote:
The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and
lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he:
(1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or
study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant
to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and
lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays
and lesbians to the power of other groups, including
African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he
personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he
cited in his expert report, see PX0794A. Furthermore, Miller
undermined the credibility of his opinions by conceding that gays
and lesbians currently face discrimination and that current
discrimination is relevant to a group’s political power.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
These are some of the key "Findings of Fact" by the Court (very difficult to reverse upon appeal). These are really bombshell findings of fact, and basically put the force of law behind practically every argument that gay rights activists have made for years about marriage equality:

Quote:
19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.
Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize
marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil
marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently
whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that
recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship
under state law.

Quote:
21. California, like every other state, has never required that
individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
procreate.

Quote:
32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the
gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender,
marital partners share the same obligations to one another and
to their dependants. As a result of Proposition 8, California
nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and
one woman.

Quote:
34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s
choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one
another and to form a household based on their own feelings
about one another and to join in an economic partnership and
support one another and any dependents.

Quote:
44. 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.

Quote:
46. 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.

Quote:
48. 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 samesex
or opposite-sex.

Quote:
50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible
benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive.

Quote:
52. 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.

Quote:
54. 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.

Quote:
55. 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.

Quote:
58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against
gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have
intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays
and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and
lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of
society.

Quote:
62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of
those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to
Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize
marriage for same-sex couples.

Quote:
70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s
adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not
determine whether that individual can be a good parent.
Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as
children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy,
successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this
conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of
developmental psychology.

Quote:
71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a
female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and
a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child
will be well-adjusted.

Quote:
72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not
related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.

Quote:
73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married
opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced
parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children
raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
pp. 112-113 wrote:
The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United
States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The
evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion,
including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social
disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that
the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason
to challenge the restriction, FF 43. The evidence shows that the
movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an
institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an
evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in
marriage.
The evidence did not show any historical purpose for
excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an
artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct
roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the
right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together
and form a household.
FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender
restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender
inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical
core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not
relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples
in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of
marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.

p. 114 wrote:
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely,
marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:31 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
p. 116 wrote:
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).

p. 117 wrote:
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.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:37 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
This is an argument that I made here on RM about 5 years ago, and this is the most prominent voicing of this opinion I've ever read anywhere else.

pp. 120-121 wrote:
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.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
p.122 wrote:
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.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
pp. 133-134 wrote:
The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass
Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage:
a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are
morally superior to same-sex couples. FF 79-80. The campaign
relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and
focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely
associated with gays and lesbians...
The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8
played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children
into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who
are not heterosexual.

p. 135 wrote:
CONCLUSION
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 oppositesex
couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 2:06 pm