REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED."
August 4, 2010
Prop 8 overturned!
Via Pam's House Blend (who got it from Good As You):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Quoting the decision
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians[polygamists]." -- Judge Vaugh Walker 8/4/2010
Kills the progressive "legal" argument that Gay Marriage would not lead to polygamy because the culture finds polygamy to be repugnant.
I could care less if someone wants multiple wives or multiple husbands Heir, so long as it is consenting adults.
HTTT, I searched the ruling for the word fragment "polyga" (found 3 hits) and the word fragment "disprov" (found several hits). I found the sentence you quote (on page 135 of the decision), but the word in brackets "[polygamists]" was not there. Did you actually add a word to a sentence in the judge's decision, to change the meaning of the decision, and represent it as accurate and true? That is exactly a Breitbart kind of move.
I wasn't aware there was a progressive argument that Gay Marriage would not lead to polygamy for any reason, because there *is* no reason to think that Gay Marriage *would* lead to polygamy. Not even if you make stuff up.
Realistically, polygamy should be legal as well.
The only real argument against it is that it complicates tax code. Oh no's, not complicated tax codes.
Three- or four- or more consenting adults should be able to live in communion with one another. It at least should not be against the law.
Ed, [polygamists] is in bracket to show I had added it.
I was not trying to imply that the judge wrote it in the option but to show the same logic/reasoning could be applied to polygamy as well as gay marriage.
So I call your argument a straw-man. I am guessing you will say I am backtracking because you caught me in a lie/falsehood.
because there *is* no reason to think that Gay Marriage *would* lead to polygamy.
Some people might disagree.
So the question is, if you get rid of the "man-woman" prong as largely arbitrary, why does this not lead to getting rid of the "one-one" prong as well? It seems like the new line is just as arbitrary as the old one.
However, I figure gay marriage is inevitable so why not push the institute of marriage over the edge by using the proponents of gay marriage reasoning for polygamy.
pyrrhic victory.
ANd if it does lead to polygamy, so what?
HTTT, you say "Ed, [polygamists] is in bracket to show I had added it.
I was not trying to imply that the judge wrote it in the option but to show the same logic/reasoning could be applied to polygamy as well as gay marriage."
You were not trying to imply, you just put polygamists inside the quotes. You didn't say "I added [polygamists]"
But you turn around and call my statement a straw man. In other words, you attack me for pointing out you misrepresented the ruling. Exact what Breitbart did in the Sherrod episode.
I read further into the Volokh Conspiracy. Apparently the polygamy argument was made as a case against making inter-racial marriage legal (as was done by the Supreme Court in 1967; some states had made it legal earlier, some never made it illegal). I assume you want to start hunting down and kill inter racial couples to prevent the evil scourge of polygamy that will start sweeping
In fact, another post at the Volokh Conspiracy makes essentially the reverse argument about the relationship between polygamy and same sex marriage.
Making an extreme and silly argument is hardly a way to "push the institute of marriage over the edge". First of all I wasn't aware marriage is a research facility. Second it is hardly persuasive to twist and slander the beliefs of the LGBT community by suggesting they advocate polygamy. But then Republicans want to repeal the 14th amendment and make African Americans slaves again.
The judge in this case?
Originally nominated in 1987 by none other than Ronald Reagan. The nomination stalled and he was re-nominated by George H.W. Bush and confirmed.
And if we want to talk about who has destroyed the institution of marriage, let's talk about heterosexuals and that amazing 50% divorce rate.
What has destroyed the American family in this country are the reckless, mindless economic policies of conservatives. We live in a country where a two-income family makes as much as a one-income family made 30 years ago. We live in a country where we've been financing tax cuts for the rich with public debt, redistributing the wealth of the middle and working class upwards. We live in a country where for the last 35 years, wages have essentially remained stagnant while the earnings of the richest have grown by some 300%.
Conservatives destroyed the American nuclear family with their draconian and selfish fiscal policies that have resulted in a regressive tax system, low paying jobs with little or no benefits, that has forced Americans to choose between work and family.
Post a Comment