Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Federal judge gives a big "F-U" to California voters

It was expected, but it still comes as a great disappointment that a federal judge in San Francisco today struck down Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that wrote into the California Constitution that marriage in this state is to be between one man and one woman. It did not ban "gay marriage" any more than it banned polygamy or marriage between siblings. It simply defined what marriage would be, rather than what it is not.

Prop. 8 passed by a vote of 52% to 48%, which in a leftist state like California is not a very close vote. In a blast of irony, one of the reasons that Prop 8 passed is because a glut of black California voters who had gone to the polls in order to vote for Barack Obama, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8 on that same ballot. This is rather amusing since one of the first methods that proponents of homosexual marriage use to defend their position is to try to link the issue to the times in our country's past when men and women of different races were not allowed by law to marry.

Another not so amusing aspect of this court decision is the fact that the judge who decided the case, Vaughn Walker (appointed by George H.W. Bush), is openly homosexual. Does this matter? Who knows; but you can't deny that given the subject matter of this court case, it certainly makes people wonder about the judge's state of mind while listening to and deciding the case.

I see this case going to the Supreme Court. We can only guess how the justices will rule, but I think you can guess with quite some accuracy.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson


Michael Ejercito said...

Proposition 8 prevented legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" and polygamy, but not incestuous marriages.

Darren said...

Remember, it was found constitutional by the California Supreme Court.

Coach Brown said...

Oh come on.

It absolutely banned gay marriage and on top of that, it was unconstitutional. Pretty clearly at that.

If the government wants to get out of marriage, then so be it. Otherwise, the government can't discriminate, which Prop 8 obviously did.

Michael Ejercito said...

That is incorrect.

Not all discrimination has been struck down by the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court had previously upheld a law that effectively discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

In Michael M. v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court upheld law that effectively prohibited underage boys from having sex with underage girls, but not underage girls from having sex with underage boys, against an equal protection claim alleging gender discrimination.

I had mentioned this case before on other blogs, primarily to demonstrate that gender discrimination is upheld in cases where analogous racial discrimination would be struck down. But upon further contemplation of Michael M. and the law it upheld, it turns out the law in question also discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. For since the law in question only prohibited sexual conduct with a female under 18 years, but did not do the same for males under 18 years, that means that the underage male partner in heterosexual relations with an underage female would be subject to prosecution, while the underage male partners in a homosexual relationship are not subject to prosecution under this law.

Thus, I fail to see how the 14th Amendment is insufficient to strike down a law imposing criminal penalties on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, while it is sufficient to strike down a law that merely uses different names on the basis of gender.

Coach Brown said...

With all due respect, that is a massive stretch and pretty much pointless to the argument at hand.

The question is simple: Why are people against gay marriage? Answer: Because it somehow reduces the "sanctity" of the definition of marriage.

First of all, that isn't an answer. That is someone's morals. Religious morals in fact. And since we aren't Iran, I prefer not to base our society on theocratic values.

Then the question becomes, does gay marriage pose a danger to the state?

Answer, no. And guess what, there isn't a shred of viable evidence to show otherwise.

Ok, then Prop 8 is simply an attempt to discriminate against a group of people based on sexual orientation. Since the government is into being involved in people's marriage, everyone gets the honor of being married, even if you are gay.

And by the way, I'm not saying the government shouldn't do more to end discrimination, although the case you bring about has to do with minors, and that brings in all kinds of other issues.

Oh, and you are talking to a Republican here.

Michael Ejercito said...

Ok, then Prop 8 is simply an attempt to discriminate against a group of people based on sexual orientation.
You mean like the California statutory rape law whicvh effectively punished underage boys for having sex with underage girls, but not underage boys who engaged in consensual homosexual conduct with other underage boys?

Anonymous said...

In response to coach brown,
First of all, this country was founded on Christian principles and since you are a history teacher I would expect you to know that unless you have been the target of revisionists and then there will just be no point speaking to you about it. Please don't even try to argue the fact that it wasn't because EVERY historical document proves that it was.
Second, as Adolf Hitler once said, "He alone who owns the youth, gains the future." Just look around at the kids nowadays, it is pretty clear that the liberals who infiltrated are schools probably before you were born have accomplished this. They portray to our children that this is an alternative lifestyle when what they should be telling them is that it is a perversion. Before the APA was ruined in the 70's they had the correct diagnosis, mental disorder. Don't waste your time telling me they were born this way, there is NO PROOF to this lie whatsoever, in fact, most college textbooks will reaffirm this and say alot of these issues are social.
Lastly, now that I have revealed the truth to you and we are clear on the matter, what is going to stop pedophiles from marrying kids or beastiality types from marrying their dogs? Aren't they just "born that way" too? No, its a perversion. So yes, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because society NEEDS people to stand up for what isn't naturally correct. Do you need me to really point out what happens when there is no moral compass? Fine, look at ancient Rome, ancient Greece, ancient Assyria, and evern to some extent modern day Europe.
Save your lies for the kids you teach, I am glad I homeschool. I have wasted enough time with you.

Anonymous said...

Federal Judges give big Fuck You to Virginia voters

In both cases, nice work Federal Judges!

Michael Ejercito said...

Explain Michael M. v. Superior Court .

Explain Baker v. Nelson .

Explain Davis v. Beason .

sengli kiu said...

Greetings admin I like your topic, after reading your article very helpful at all and can be a source of reference I will wait for your next article updates Thank you, for sharing

sex shop
sex shop semarang
sex toys semarang
alat pembesar penis
vimax asli
obat kuat semarang
boneka sex full body
obat perangsang wanita semarang

sengli kiu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.