Prop. 8 Ruling: "Fantastic" Decision or "Judicial Activism"?

[ekiosity]

cbsnews com/8301-503544_162-20012759-503544.html

Political commentators had a wide array of reactions to District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling yesterday that California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. Liberals praised both the decision and the details of Walker's written opinion, while conservatives decried it as judicial activism.


"Today is one of those rare seminal days where something important and something good has occurred. Fantastic," blogger "bmaz" wrote on the liberal site FireDogLake. "The beauty and joy of equality, due process and equal protection under the Constitution of the United States of America."

 

[ekiosity]

So, what exactly does equal protection mean here? The protection to marry who you want? Because the government doesn't give anyone that right.

 

[Luissa]

Here is a little info on the judge.



omination by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989.

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".[4] 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.


Wired magazine describes Walker as having libertarian leanings.[7]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Luissa]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

 

[bodecea]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.

 

[G.T.]

I think it's late that this is even happening in our Country. 2010. Really?

 

[topspin]

great
any discrimination is bad
next cali will legalize God's herb and we can save billions on prohibition of fun

 

[G.T.]

great
any discrimination is bad
next cali will legalize God's herb and we can save billions on prohibition of fun

I can't believe that's still illegal either, to be honest.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

Doesn't matter, marriage is a state's rights issue. The 10th Amendment is clear. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.

Where in the 14th amendment does it address marriage?

 

[Jeremy]

As long as the government doesn't say that I HAVE TO marry someone of the same sex than I don't care. Good for them. It doesn't effect my life or my marriage. But does this now set legal president that I can move to California and merry a peanut butter cup? Because I love peanut butter cups!!!!

 

[bodecea]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

Doesn't matter, marriage is a state's rights issue. The 10th Amendment is clear. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Did I ever see you argue against DOMA?

 

[bodecea]

As long as the government doesn't say that I HAVE TO marry someone of the same sex than I don't care. Good for them. It doesn't effect my life or my marriage. But does this now set legal president that I can move to California and merry a peanut butter cup? Because I love peanut butter cups!!!!

Marry them? I bet you just use and abuse them....

 

[bodecea]

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.

Where in the 14th amendment does it address marriage?

Equal protection is part of the 14th amendment...in case you had not yet heard.

 

[theHawk]

I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.

Where in the 14th amendment does it address marriage?

Equal protection is part of the 14th amendment...in case you had not yet heard.

The law in no way denied anyone the right to get married.
Every man(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a woman.
Every woman(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a man.
In fact, the law did nothing to prevent homosexuals from getting "married" to each other, it just said that the state would not recognize it.

 

[G.T.]

/lame argument.

 

[Jeremy]

As long as the government doesn't say that I HAVE TO marry someone of the same sex than I don't care. Good for them. It doesn't effect my life or my marriage. But does this now set legal president that I can move to California and merry a peanut butter cup? Because I love peanut butter cups!!!!

Marry them? I bet you just use and abuse them....

Only the little ones. They don't fight back.

...ok, that sounded really bad.

 

[theHawk]

/lame argument.

Funny, you can't point out how. Everything I stated is a fact, plain and simple.

 

[ekiosity]

But we are equally protected, right? Gays and straights have the same rights. What am I missing here?