Topic: Prop 8 struck down

[idolminds]

Hooray! You can read the actual ruling right here, which I've actually been going through. You can skip on down to the conclusion near the bottom but the earlier parts are very interesting. Relatively speaking. It is a legal document, after all.

For all the crap you hear about laws and government, here they got it right and for the right reasons. I'm sure the prop 8 people will attempt to appeal, but it looks like they have an uphill battle ahead of them. They provided little credible evidence and all their arguments were ripped to shreds.

Its one of those rulings that makes you feel proud. Reason prevailed.

EDIT

[scottws]

The courts have been impressing me lately.  First fair use triumphs over the DMCA and now this.  Although to be honest I don't care about this all that much.  I guess I figured it was inevitable.

[Quemaqua]

Enjoy your divorces, kids.  Now you get to experience all the paperwork and the legal nightmares on top of the heartbreak.  Have fun with that.

[nickclone]

Enjoy your divorces, kids.  Now you get to experience all the paperwork and the legal nightmares on top of the heartbreak.  Have fun with that.

But think about all those sweet, sweet, balls in the mouth!...if you're into that kind of thing...

[Cobra951]

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

That's false.  He missed one rather important difference.  Opposite-sex marriage can lead to children intrinsically; same-sex cannot.  Personally, I don't care.  But it seems to me if this isn't dealt with in the same paragraph, then it comes off as biased the other way.  Everyone has an agenda.

[idolminds]

They should have quoted the line before that one. I'll highlight it here.

PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples by: (1) “[u.]sing different names for different things”; (2) “[m]aintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of different types of relationships”; (3) “[e]nsuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions”; and (4) “[c]onforming California’s definition of marriage to federal law.” Doc #605 at 14.

Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.  FF 47-50.  The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.  See FF 48, 76-80.  The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.

But they do talk about the child bearing.

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse.

[K-man]

Yeah I mean by that definition, homosexual couples should be no different than heterosexual couples who cannot biologically conceive.

[Cobra951]

They should have quoted the line before that one. I'll highlight it here.
 But they do talk about the child bearing.

No, I read most of the opinion.  I'm saying the quoted text is false.  I know they dealt with all the details.

[idolminds]

Ah, ok.

[Ghandi]

So how long do we have before the gays destroy marriage? I was thinking hours but it looks like it may be a few days after all.

[Quemaqua]

I think people in general already pretty well destroyed it.