A worthwhile political comic (Prop 8)

[SOAD]

The issue I have with the judge's ruling is the fact that the judge is openly gay. Stephen Colbert put it this way -


Basically, an openly gay man is going to be for gay marriage. He has everything to gain by deciding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Whereas, a straight or bisexual man would have almost nothing to gain by declaring it unconstitutional.
Does anyone get where I'm going with this? I'm not extremely good at expressing my ideas coherently.

Your thought could go a couple of ways depending on your political bias. I would expect a republican here to say that the gay judge is an activist while the straight judges follow the rule of law. I would expect a democrat to say that the gay judge is merely following the rule of law as it applies to the case and straight judges are homophobic. It looks like you stand with the republicans on this issue.

 

[variant]

Basically, an openly gay man is going to be for gay marriage. He has everything to gain by deciding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Whereas, a straight or bisexual man would have almost nothing to gain by declaring it unconstitutional.
Does anyone get where I'm going with this? I'm not extremely good at expressing my ideas coherently.

Why wouldn't a fundamentalist Christian have anything to gain by ruling it unconstitutional? Would you have expected such a person to not make a ruling?

Should the entire Supreme Court recuse itself on issues where Christianity has something to gain?

Should Justice Thomas have to recuse himself on issues that effect black people?

What you are saying is that since he was Gay, the only proper way he could have ruled was against Gay people, which is preposterous.

Yeah, obviously gay people are more likely to think that they have every right to live in a society unmolested by majority opinions of their social status and arrangements than (well a huge percentage of the population that thinks they don’t deserve it).

 

[reverend B]

The issue I have with the judge's ruling is the fact that the judge is openly gay. Stephen Colbert put it this way -


Basically, an openly gay man is going to be for gay marriage. He has everything to gain by deciding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Whereas, a straight or bisexual man would have almost nothing to gain by declaring it unconstitutional.
Does anyone get where I'm going with this? I'm not extremely good at expressing my ideas coherently.

read the man's decision and base your opinion of it based on the facts. seems straight forward to me. i don't think the man's sexuality has much to do with his ability to make a coherent argument. by presuming that he makes his decisions based on what he has to gain is a very serious indictment of a judge.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Given that no rights were taken away via Proposition 8(also known as Proposition GREAT), your objection is clearly irrelevant. To call an apple a moon shaped fruit with a yellow peel and then claim you are offended when someone gives you a round red fruit with a core is dishonest. And that is the heart of the pro-perversity movement. In their own literature they come right out and say to eachother that it doesn't matter if a statement is true, so long as it furthers their cause. Liars to the core, they are.

Another PRATT squashed.

Once again, you're using the same bad analogy. Marriage is a malleable concept (just look at its history and you'll see exactly how malleable it has been).

 

[Drekkan85]

Once again, you're using the same bad analogy. Marriage is a malleable concept (just look at its history and you'll see exactly how malleable it has been).

Just one thing that's been bugging me for... a while. One argument I've heard, repeatedly, about gay marriage is "how dare the State think of changing the meaning of a word that's existed for thousands of years!!!" [or other alternatives of the same vein].

Ignoring the very good counter argument you're making (which IS a good point, marriage has changed over time in definition), there's an even better one.

Government change definitions of words all the time. Consider the simple mushroom. It's a fungus. Yet, in Canada and I'm willing to bet in the US, if there's a law that deals specifically with rotting vegetable matter... it will cover rotting mushrooms. Mushrooms aren't vegetables! They're fungus! But they're covered because the government has changed the definition of vegetable to cover mushrooms.

An even better definitional change. Since the first time one caveman could point at another caveman and grunt I'm fairly sure there's been some concept of what a "person" is. It's likely one of the very first things we've ever had a definition for. Yet we have little to no problem allowing a government to 're-define' the definition of person to include corporations. They changed the meaning of the word PERSON! Yet you think they should for some reason be barred from changing the definition of a malleable and modern concept like marriage?

It all comes down to one thing - some people think gay marriage is icky. That's ultimately what it comes down to.

 

[GarrettC]

Why wouldn't a fundamentalist Christian have anything to gain by ruling it unconstitutional? Would you have expected such a person to not make a ruling?

Should the entire Supreme Court recuse itself on issues where Christianity has something to gain?

Should Justice Thomas have to recuse himself on issues that effect black people?

What you are saying is that since he was Gay, the only proper way he could have ruled was against Gay people, which is preposterous.

Yeah, obviously gay people are more likely to think that they have every right to live in a society unmolested by majority opinions of their social status and arrangements than (well a huge percentage of the population that thinks they don’t deserve it).

Justice Thomas, to use your example, is balanced out by eight other people. He is not one man deciding a case.
Ideally, the judge deciding this case should have been straight or bi, should not have cared about whether someone is gay or not (i.e. as unbiased as humanly possible), and carefully screened to determine whether the judge could be influenced by his or her personal experience with the issue. In legal terms, the judge should not have had a conflict of interest.

 

[GarrettC]

read the man's decision and base your opinion of it based on the facts. seems straight forward to me. i don't think the man's sexuality has much to do with his ability to make a coherent argument. by presuming that he makes his decisions based on what he has to gain is a very serious indictment of a judge.

I'm not saying that was the reason he decided the way he did.
I'm saying that it could very well have influenced him.
It's classic psychology -- if you prefer a specific outcome, in this case the reversal of Prop 8, you are more likely to do things you wouldn't normally do to get that outcome.
Again, I'm not saying that the reason the judge ruled the way he did was because of his sexual orientation. I'm simply saying it was a distinct danger, and one officials should have recognized before the case came to court.

 

[lemmings]

Lets say that we have a sexual harassment case. A female employee is harassed by her boss.

Who is allowed to rule on it?

A female judge might be biased for the woman, a male, for the man. Do we hire a transsexual judge? Maybe we need a eunuch?

 

[BoltNut]

I'm not saying that was the reason he decided the way he did.
I'm saying that it could very well have influenced him.
It's classic psychology -- if you prefer a specific outcome, in this case the reversal of Prop 8, you are more likely to do things you wouldn't normally do to get that outcome.
Again, I'm not saying that the reason the judge ruled the way he did was because of his sexual orientation. I'm simply saying it was a distinct danger, and one officials should have recognized before the case came to court.

I understand your point. Being a gay judge, if he had excused himself from hearing this case, another judge would have taken his place. If that new judge were not gay, would there not be reason for the new judge to excuse himself based on a potential bias toward heterosexuals? It kinda works both ways.

In the case heard about Prop 8, I believe it would have been difficult for a judge who was an old fashioned, Bible believing Christian to decide any differently than this judge did. The 'plaintiffs' made a good case. The proponents of Prop 8 just didn't do their homework. It would have been very difficult for some of the best legal minds in our nation to win that case.

These days, there are so many issues that strike a nerve with me. Many of these issues go to the heart of my beliefs as a Christian. I am finding that I cannot 'slay every dragon' that is out there. Arguing over a few issues, even though they are important in my heart, are becoming pointless. I'm having to pick other 'battles' to fight. The concern I have in this particular instance is more how it will affect the future. Can churches at some future time be sued for refusing to 'marry' gay couples based on Biblical teachings? It's possible, I would imagine. That, in my opinion, is much more important than the decision that was made by this judge.

 

[Maren]

Some of the worst radical judges were placed by Republicans.
Hard to argue with that.

Yet I don't know of any radical judges nominated by Reagan that were not confirmed, like this judge was not confirmed when nominated by Reagan. Beyond that, not only does he have a 20-year record of fair (though rather conservative) rulings but also one reason he had problems getting confirmed was he was believed to have an anti-gay bias (due to a case he won against a homosexual group).

 

[Maren]

I would tend to agree with you. The problem is that we are a Republic and ruled by law. The voice of the majority of people is one thing, how that voice (or proposition in this case) affects others is a Constitutional matter. If that law somehow violates the rights of another, it is deemed unconstitutional and stricken down. When I read the transcript, it became apparent that the proponents of Prop 8 were lacking in legal expertise. If they insist in presenting a similar case to the Supreme Court, they will get slaughtered.

Actually, in appeal the lawyers may not re-argue the case. Rather, they must show where the judge made an error either during the trial or in his decision that likely affected the outcome of the case. One of the things most people complaining about the verdict miss is that even witnesses for the defense admitted during cross-examination that gay marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages.

 

[BoltNut]

Actually, in appeal the lawyers may not re-argue the case. Rather, they must show where the judge made an error either during the trial or in his decision that likely affected the outcome of the case. One of the things most people complaining about the verdict miss is that even witnesses for the defense admitted during cross-examination that gay marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages.

Right. Most of the "expert" witnesses provided by the Pro-prop 8 team, were shown to not be "expert". These same witnesses did admit to what you have pointed out. In my mind, it would be difficult for anyone to show a "mistake" in the judges ruling. But, stranger things have happened. It really pays to go back and read the transcript. It makes the decision much easier to understand.

 

[Maren]

Right. Most of the "expert" witnesses provided by the Pro-prop 8 team, were shown to not be "expert". These same witnesses did admit to what you have pointed out. In my mind, it would be difficult for anyone to show a "mistake" in the judges ruling. But, stranger things have happened. It really pays to go back and read the transcript. It makes the decision much easier to understand.

I've read a bit about whether this ruling can be successfully appealed, not just based on the facts of the case but also the question of if the proponents have the legal standing to appeal it. The State of California (represented by the Governor and Attorney General) have already stated they will not appeal. The problem for the proponents is that they will have great difficulty showing that they were harmed by the ruling -- particularly with their own witnesses saying that heterosexual marriage is not harmed by allowing gay marriages.

Part of what makes me question if this might occur is that I don't think the Supreme Court is ready to set a precedence on same-sex marriage, they would rather duck the issue (as they have done the last several years) if they can find a way to do so. By refusing to hear appeals they can limit the effect of this ruling to Prop. 8 -- it doesn't necessarily create the legal precedent that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional in the US. Instead, it limits the scope of the ruling specifically to Prop. 8 and the poor defense of that amendment in California.

 

[BoltNut]

I've read a bit about whether this ruling can be successfully appealed, not just based on the facts of the case but also the question of if the proponents have the legal standing to appeal it. The State of California (represented by the Governor and Attorney General) have already stated they will not appeal. The problem for the proponents is that they will have great difficulty showing that they were harmed by the ruling -- particularly with their own witnesses saying that heterosexual marriage is not harmed by allowing gay marriages.

Part of what makes me question if this might occur is that I don't think the Supreme Court is ready to set a precedence on same-sex marriage, they would rather duck the issue (as they have done the last several years) if they can find a way to do so. By refusing to hear appeals they can limit the effect of this ruling to Prop. 8 -- it doesn't necessarily create the legal precedent that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional in the US. Instead, it limits the scope of the ruling specifically to Prop. 8 and the poor defense of that amendment in California.

By what I hear you say, maybe it is in the interest of those against same-sex marriage to not appeal the decision on Prop 8? That maybe they should "pin their hopes" on a Federal Constitutional ban instead? I'd still think that would be a tough sell. Either that or I'm missing the point you are making. They can't really duck the issue forever. Someday the precedent will have to be set.

 

[Maren]

By what I hear you say, maybe it is in the interest of those against same-sex marriage to not appeal the decision on Prop 8? That maybe they should "pin their hopes" on a Federal Constitutional ban instead? I'd still think that would be a tough sell. Either that or I'm missing the point you are making.

Right now, despite being a federal court ruling, the judgment is solely on Prop. 8 and this particular trial -- it doesn't create a precedent so that gays in Texas can sue that the Texas Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage goes against the federal constitution. At this point it only effects gay marriage in California.

If it is heard by the Ninth Circuit Court, that will create a legal precedent of gay marriage violating the equal protection clause in the Constitution that lawyers in other states (especially those in the Western states covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Ciruit) can use to challenge gay marriage bans in their own state.

And again, if heard in the Supreme Court, it would set the legal precedent in the entire country and could (like Loving v Virginia) force legalization of gay marriage in every state.

Now, if the courts were to decline to hear the appeal (regardless of what the Prop. 8 lawyers do) based on a lack of standing by the Prop. 8 defense team (the defendants were not able to show how the Prop. 8 ruling is harmful to them) it would not set a precedent. This would be an easy way out for the higher courts to not have to make a decision on gay marriage, especially since the State of California has stated they will not appeal the ruling.

And I'll agree a Federal Constitutional ban is unlikely, it was tried at least 3 times during the Bush administration (while the Republicans had control of the House and Senate) and failed each time. The issue now is that this, for the moment, only effects the gay marriage ban in California. If the case is heard in a higher court and upheld, it sets the precedent, potentially for the entire US, that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. As you've stated, the defense of the gay marriage ban is weak and likely this ruling would be difficult to overturn on the merits of an appeal -- as such higher courts may not wish to set a precedent based on such a poorly defended case.

 

[BoltNut]

Right now, despite being a federal court ruling, the judgment is solely on Prop. 8 and this particular trial -- it doesn't create a precedent so that gays in Texas can sue that the Texas Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage goes against the federal constitution. At this point it only effects gay marriage in California.

If it is heard by the Ninth Circuit Court, that will create a legal precedent of gay marriage violating the equal protection clause in the Constitution that lawyers in other states (especially those in the Western states covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Ciruit) can use to challenge gay marriage bans in their own state.

And again, if heard in the Supreme Court, it would set the legal precedent in the entire country and could (like Loving v Virginia) force legalization of gay marriage in every state.

Now, if the courts were to decline to hear the appeal (regardless of what the Prop. 8 lawyers do) based on a lack of standing by the Prop. 8 defense team (the defendants were not able to show how the Prop. 8 ruling is harmful to them) it would not set a precedent. This would be an easy way out for the higher courts to not have to make a decision on gay marriage, especially since the State of California has stated they will not appeal the ruling.

And I'll agree a Federal Constitutional ban is unlikely, it was tried at least 3 times during the Bush administration (while the Republicans had control of the House and Senate) and failed each time. The issue now is that this, for the moment, only effects the gay marriage ban in California. If the case is heard in a higher court and upheld, it sets the precedent, potentially for the entire US, that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. As you've stated, the defense of the gay marriage ban is weak and likely this ruling would be difficult to overturn on the merits of an appeal -- as such higher courts may not wish to set a precedent based on such a poorly defended case.

Okay, this makes things more clear. By taking it to the 9th Circuit Court, it would have more far-reaching ramifications for either side. Sounds to me that these folks should re-think the appeal. If I were one of them, I don't know if I'd feel comfortable putting all my "eggs" in that "basket".

 

[Maren]

Okay, this makes things more clear. By taking it to the 9th Circuit Court, it would have more far-reaching ramifications for either side. Sounds to me that these folks should re-think the appeal. If I were one of them, I don't know if I'd feel comfortable putting all my "eggs" in that "basket".

I've wondered if that wouldn't be the smartest decision -- though it would mean conceding defeat in California (though I think Prop. 8 would be overturned in a few years even if found to be constitutional). I just don't think the groups supporting Prop. 8 are willing to conceded defeat.

I think most people concede that the Ninth Circuit Court (having the reputation as being the nation's most liberal appeals court) will uphold the ruling by Judge Walker.

The Supreme Court is an interesting question. Many seem to believe the Supreme Court will not want to uphold the ruling, the thinking being the nation would not be ready for that type of ruling and that this is a conservative dominated court. There are others who see the Supreme Court being largely split on ideological lines. The feeling is that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would all vote to overturn Judge Walker's ruling while Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan would vote to uphold the ruling. This leaves Justice Kennedy as the deciding vote and it is worthwhile to note that he authored the majority opinions on both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas (two landmark gay rights cases).

This is part of the reason that I think the Supreme Court would rather not hear the case. I don't think they want to make this decision on gay marriage (deciding it for the nation) unless they absolutely have to.

 

[Harpuia]

A federal constitutional ban would be ironic.

The Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments were made to give us our rights. Such an amendment would take it away.

 

[BoltNut]

A federal constitutional ban would be ironic.

The Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments were made to give us our rights. Such an amendment would take it away.

Some may see it as ironic, I guess. I'd imagine that it would come down to the original intent of the law. Did the founders of the Constitution ever consider same-sex marriage? Apparently, it didn't even enter their minds. I would think there would be a reason for that. The likelihood of a Constitutional ban, I would think is remote. The way things have gone in court decisions over the past twenty years or so would indicate it would not happen. As was said by Maren, the court will do everything possible in order to avoid having to ever make such a decision.

 

[variant]

Some may see it as ironic, I guess. I'd imagine that it would come down to the original intent of the law. Did the founders of the Constitution ever consider same-sex marriage? Apparently, it didn't even enter their minds. I would think there would be a reason for that.

It was 1787 and they thought women and black people were inherently inferior, so, I am sure that the equal rights of gay people (the fourteenth amendment not even being proposed yet) wasn’t even on their minds.