California's gay marriage ban struck down as unconstitutional

[Ben Kenobi]

The highly anticipated ruling by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker marked a major turning point for a social debate that has sharply divided the American public and its political establishment.

Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Californians voted in favour of banning gay marriage.

People should have the right to decide for themselves. California does not want gay marriage, they should not have to have gay marriage.

Why would this have any impact on me wanting to go to the US? They did the exact same garbage up here, except it was nationwide, and never put up to a vote.

[Boris Godunov]

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

[Solomwi]

Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Californians voted in favour of banning gay marriage.

People should have the right to decide for themselves. California does not want gay marriage, they should not have to have gay marriage.

Why would this have any impact on me wanting to go to the US? They did the exact same garbage up here, except it was nationwide, and never put up to a vote.

And there it is.

[giblets]

People should have the right to make decisions for themselves... so ban gay marriage... impeccable logic.

[Asher]

Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Californians voted in favour of banning gay marriage.

People should have the right to decide for themselves.

Agreed, Ben.

The State has no business determining who gets to marry. People can decide for themselves on an individual basis.

[Asher]

People should have the right to make decisions for themselves... so ban gay marriage... impeccable logic.

Big Government Ben is one of the most oppressively big-government supporters on this forum. He even beats Che here.

It's pathetic.

[DinoDoc]

I don't know about the merits of the decision as I haven't seen it myself and the legal basis for it maybe shaky for all I know but I would regard accusations of some in this thread of some sort of bias in favor of the gay community with a little skepticism as his record doesn't seem to suggest that he's an activist for gay causes. Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics". Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.

[Ben Kenobi]

The State has no business determining who gets to marry. People can decide for themselves on an individual basis.

Then the state would issue no marriage licenses at all. Arguing in favour of the recognition of gay marriage by the state is the antithesis of arguing against state intervention in marriage. Arguing it's recognition against the vote of the people in support of Prop 8 is a massive increase in the power of the state vs the power of the people.

[Ben Kenobi]

Big Government Ben is one of the most oppressively big-government supporters on this forum. He even beats Che here.

40 million babies would argue differently.

I think the federal government has a legitimate role in the recognition of marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses.

Your argument isn't that the state should or should not intervene, but how. You believe that the state should redefine marriage, which is giving the state much more power then the recognition of marriage as an institution older than the state. If the state can redefine what marriage means, it can also redefine it so that gay people cannot have any recognition at all. So it's a double edged sword. It also means that it becomes an issue that is no longer rights based, but rather, franchise based.

Granted, the libertarian argument of zero state intervention at all is a different position, but that would mean zero state recognition of gay marriage, which is not what you are arguing here.

[Asher]

Then the state would issue no marriage licenses at all.

Very astute, you are.

[Ben Kenobi]

Very astute, you are.

Then why are you arguing in favour of this decision? It runs completely contrary to this argument, in having one justice override the vote in favour of prop 8.

Everyone who voted in favour of prop 8 is going to be majorly honked off, and you'll lose supporters. They aren't going to respond kindly, especially giving the vandalism and intimidation campaign against prop 8 supporters.

[Asher]

I'm in favour of this because it's the next best thing.

Ideally the government would get out of regulating people's social and love lives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if they are, then at least they can do so equally rather than discriminating against one group of consenting adults.

[Lonestar]

Verily.


Some of the howls are funny though. I was unaware that civil rights were up for popular vote in this country.

[Hauldren Collider]

How is it a civil right guaranteed by the constitution?