Fed judge to decide constitutionality of gay marriage today

[Col. Flagg]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... marry.html

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Here we go again.

[Hyrcanus]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... marry.html

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Here we go again.

The judge in this case is a pretty interesting character. He was originally nominated by Reagan, but stalled when Pelosi and others blocked him over "insensitivity to gays", having something to do with the Olympics, I don't recall the details. He has been reported to be gay himself, though no confirmation or denial. He apparently has libertarian leanings. Hard to guess which way he'll go.

[Col. Flagg]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... marry.html

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Here we go again.

The judge in this case is a pretty interesting character. He was originally nominated by Reagan, but stalled when Pelosi and others blocked him over "insensitivity to gays", having something to do with the Olympics, I don't recall the details. He has been reported to be gay himself, though no confirmation or denial. He apparently has libertarian leanings. Hard to guess which way he'll go.

I'm going to guess he rules that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to anyone based solely on their sexual preference. This issue has just come up too many times in the past for it to be shot down yet again. It's just another step on the immorality ladder on the road to destruction for the country, sadly.

[serenitylala]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... marry.html

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Here we go again.

I just love how one man can overturn the voice of the people. What a great system we live in.

[Henmasher]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... marry.html

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Here we go again.

I just love how one man can overturn the voice of the people. What a great system we live in.

What if the voice of the people is unconstitutional?
I believe to be disgusting but that pain of a constitution was founded of God. The moral debate of it was up to us to interpret and either get right or wrong. Sadly we are verging on another step of gross innacuraccy

[Fiannan]

Well, "Judicial Review", as we know it, was not founded by theose who wrote the Constitution or by God -- it was a power taken by the court in teh ruling of Marbury v. Madison. In a way it would be like it the 2nd counelor in the bishopric were to suddenly declare in front of the ward that he is the one who is in charge of interpreting what the bishop says -- and everyone including the bishop goes ahead and lets him run the show.

[John Adams]

Done.

Federal Judge Overturns California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... riage-ban/

[NoGreaterLove]

One step closer to closing the temples. The appointment of Kagen is the next.

[Hyrcanus]

Here is the Church's official statement about the decision:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-8-ruling

[Jason]

Posted in Blipits thread also but here's the decision -
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf

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.

[Jason]

Here is the Church's official statement about the decision:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... n-8-ruling

Thank you for the link!!!

....and its well stated! Emphasized the importance (bedrock) and highlighted what the results will be (major court action as it goes to Supreme Court).....war is just getting started!

Utahns react to Prop 8 ruling
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50052 ... g.html.csp

[Rensai]

It's a good thing we have these wise judges to interpret the constitution for simple folk like me. I've searched the constitution several times and I still can't find the section about marriage. I would have probably got hung up on the tenth amendment and let the people of California decide on the law.

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.

It takes a true scholar to see the full meaning of this and realize that gay marriage was intended to be an exception to this clause without any such wording!

[ithink]

It's a good thing we have these wise judges to interpret the constitution for simple folk like me. I've searched the constitution several times and I still can't find the section about marriage. I would have probably got hung up on the tenth amendment and let the people of California decide on the law.

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.

It takes a true scholar to see the full meaning of this and realize that gay marriage was intended to be an exception to this clause without any such wording!

The whole thing is a tax issue, not a morality issue. Americans should have got out of the tax system while you could. The marriage issue should not even be left to the states, it should be left to the people -- certainly not even enshrined in any constitution.

[pjbrownie]

Equal protection should only really apply to fundamental rights, those guaranteed by God. Do gays have the right to vote, enter into business contracts, speak, have freedom of press----a resounding YES. Marriage itself is nothing but state recognition of a familial relationship. If the state--through the organ of the people--feel that these types of relationships are inferior, so what? The problem is that this undermines the state tax issues of marriage--when it should only be something recognized by religion. Ironically, the Church fight on this is eerily similar to those of the plural marriage fights.

Polygamy will only be around the corner--equal protection and all.

[ChelC]

It's because as a society we have removed the relevance of God and natural law. This decision was bound to happen. Many more attacks on the Constitution (and victories for Satan) are bound to happen as well. Without a general consensus of a higher power, the whole thing crumbles. We repent, or we're toast.

Without God, we have no natural law, no natural rights. We're completely vulnerable.

[NoGreaterLove]

Can anyone else see Satan's attack on the temple? IMO the Church fought for prop 8 because this is where all this is heading......the closing of the temples. I firmly believe this war of prop 8 is a much bigger picture than we think. The appointment of Kagen to the court is Satan's way of ensuring this prop 8 thing goes his way. Once Gary marriage becomes constitutional, the courts will go after the Church and require equal rights in our temples. The abomination of desolation is about to occur. Or the abomination that makes desolate. Gay rights, desolating the temple. The daily sacrifice being stopped for a season.

[jsk]

Right on Chelc and No Greater Love...

[ithink]

Can anyone else see Satan's attack on the temple? IMO the Church fought for prop 8 because this is where all this is heading......the closing of the temples. I firmly believe this war of prop 8 is a much bigger picture than we think. The appointment of Kagen to the court is Satan's way of ensuring this prop 8 thing goes his way. Once Gary marriage becomes constitutional, the courts will go after the Church and require equal rights in our temples. The abomination of desolation is about to occur. Or the abomination that makes desolate. Gay rights, desolating the temple. The daily sacrifice being stopped for a season.

I'm saying it is a ruse: the fight was lost the day the IRS and the FED gained power and the church bought into the "tax exemption" crap, instead of deriving their status from a higher document -- the constitution. If it weren't for the issue of tax benefits and so on, the church and country could simply ignore gay marriage and let god deal with them. As it is, now we have a huge mess, but the root isn't gay marriage -- it's taxes.

[pjbrownie]

Yes Prop 8 is now struck down—I’m perplexed. I’m a student of history and can’t help but see the irony of the LDS Church using the opposite legal argument that they used to plead for plural marriage—the interest of the state in keeping marriage between a man and a women—whereas in the 1880’s the state should but out of such private affairs—marriage was no business of the state. From such a longitudinal view, these arguments seem like sweet justice to the legislative decisions over a century ago—the state has no business in dictating the ideal form of relations between persons. One can’t help but see the plural marriage practitioners rubbing their hands to use this jurisprudence. If the 14th amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law—now in marriage matters—why limit the number to only 2? Are not 3 or 4 party marriages in need of as much equal protection? We could veritably find ourselves back in 1880 arguing the validity of Edmunds-Tucker. One also wonders if this is the elephant in the room for the LDS Church. Are they as frustrated with gay marriage or are they worried about the theological questions that may be raised again over polygamy is the basis for the Manifesto were to be removed by law?
But onto the substance of the ruling: It was irritating—less from that normative question of should gay have the right to marry, but the nature of the trial, its intimidation factors against the Proposition 8 supporters, and its lopsided process. Buried in its ruling is an even more nefarious problem, the Federal government overturning what ought to be a state matter—again—another violation of the 10th amendment—which almost has no teeth and will be subject to the supremacy clause once again. The further neutering of the Republic is at stake here. Not that gay rights advocates of the left are the only ones that use this tactic—DOMA was a legislative law in the opposite direction but just as complicit in republican small r suicide. Why does everything have to be affirmed at the Federal level? The higher we go up in the process of governance, the more we hand the reigns of governance over to academic elites and away from the hands of the people. We use this hammer to settle all matters of law permanently. Why do we have to do this? Why do things have to be settled permanently? Are we that sick of seeing these kinds of battles on our newspaper’s front page? Why do we care what California does if we live in Utah? Because we know that it trickles up federally and then trickles down as a hammer to the rest of us. We have this collective understanding—think Roe v. Wade. This is the core crux of the Tea Party movement—the return to the Federalist concept that has been eroded essentially since the Civil War—a push to the swinging back of a progressive-internationalist bent that needs to be corrected. What this ruling does is reaffirm the big over the small, top-down governance and not bottom up. And this is why it was bad and why we should be worried about it. If Proposition 8 was a bad constitutional amendment, fine, let California figure it out by overturning the amendment.
The final perplexity is the so-called damage done to homosexuals by the discriminatory law. The burden was placed upon the defense to prove that homosexual unions were damaging to society. My response is so what? Why does it have to visibly damage society in order for a law to be applicable? What this does is set up all so-called moral and other types of laws to be at the mercy of social scientists. Why not take the next inevitable set and set all types of moral laws under the jurisdiction of the American Psychological Association and out of the hands of the common man? This is another step towards a technocracy and away from republican democratic government. Another word for that is tyranny. What about the burden of proof upon the plaintiff that Proposition 8 was doing harm? Could gays still vote, work, enter contracts, speak, love, worship after Proposition 8? Yes. Their “proof” of harm has been to show suicides, depression, and other improvable correlations. These factors are just as likely a result of a political lobby that uses the power of suggestion to promote repression among the homosexual community—in order to foster these kinds of responses—and affect harm. Does the leftist political lobby have any such motive? It’s no secret (or is it) that these leftist radicals use cultural revolution to overturn the oppressive institutions of capitalism which include include marriage, religion, and family. Make these institutions irrelevant, and you have nothing left but the state.
But of course conspiracy is only relegated to the right with war politics and Halliburton. The left has no interest in having the ends justify the means, right Saul Alinsky? In this world, gays have been the patsy, set up as repressed by their handlers against folks that are willing to live and let live, but want institutions like marriage protected—be it irrational or not.
The unspoken discussion is that we have no idea what homosexuality is. We can’t discuss it in rational terms because it has been politicized and has increasingly received jurisprudence associated with the term. Yet we still can’t define the term and society hasn’t had the discussion about what it means to be gay. There are men that have sex with men, who aren’t gay. Okay. There are men who are heterosexual but like to have relations with male teens, just like our Roman and Greek ancestors did and now it’s taboo and even illegal. Then we have the college jocks who experiment. Then we have the reasons women are lesbian, much of which is political, some of which is a response to social pressure, as well as bisexuality, bar-sexuality, and feminism. Yet it’s an irreversible condition which you are born with? Yeah right. It’s just as possible that these so-called harms are conditions of the behavior itself as it is a symptom of repression. I have yet to see a study that proves that repression is causing these kinds of harmful behaviors. We could use that same argument that since right-wing religious society frowns upon adultery, it’s the principle cause for depression and anxiety among adulterers. This would mean that there’s harm being done—thus to force churches to quit condemning adultery in the name of rights or fairness. It’s all such crap.
One final thought—since this battle is so much about semantics, let’s allow gays to marry, let them have the word, “marriage”—then those of us who are in real marriage, we can then call them “pregnable unions.” These sort of pregnable unions have some special protection because they have the ability to propagate the species and so need some special accommodations to help do so. . . This sounds so ridiculous sometimes—but maybe it’s come to this. Let me see a homosexual argue that they should have the term, “pregnable union.” That’ll be the day.

[Rensai]

Yes Prop 8 is now struck down—I’m perplexed. I’m a student of history and can’t help but see the irony of the LDS Church using the opposite legal argument that they used to plead for plural marriage—the interest of the state in keeping marriage between a man and a women—whereas in the 1880’s the state should but out of such private affairs—marriage was no business of the state.

I saw that too, but of course the real difference is that in 1880 the church knew polygamy was approved by God. Now we have the opposite, we know gay relations are condemned by god, so I think the church is just trying to fight for what's right with whatever means are available.

From such a longitudinal view, these arguments seem like sweet justice to the legislative decisions over a century ago—the state has no business in dictating the ideal form of relations between persons. One can’t help but see the plural marriage practitioners rubbing their hands to use this jurisprudence. If the 14th amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law—now in marriage matters—why limit the number to only 2? Are not 3 or 4 party marriages in need of as much equal protection? We could veritably find ourselves back in 1880 arguing the validity of Edmunds-Tucker. One also wonders if this is the elephant in the room for the LDS Church. Are they as frustrated with gay marriage or are they worried about the theological questions that may be raised again over polygamy is the basis for the Manifesto were to be removed by law?

possibly, but I doubt it. Practically speaking almost everyone is dead set against polygamy, so even if it was legal again, I think very few would practice it unless explicitly commanded to through the church. I just don't see that being a big concern for the Church with everything else going on these days. We've got much bigger fish to fry. Porn, gay marriage, adultery, divorce without adequate cause, etc. All these are far bigger issues than polygamy would be.

But onto the substance of the ruling: It was irritating—less from that normative question of should gay have the right to marry, but the nature of the trial, its intimidation factors against the Proposition 8 supporters, and its lopsided process. Buried in its ruling is an even more nefarious problem, the Federal government overturning what ought to be a state matter—again—another violation of the 10th amendment—which almost has no teeth and will be subject to the supremacy clause once again. The further neutering of the Republic is at stake here.

Yep. One more nail in the coffin of the republic.

Not that gay rights advocates of the left are the only ones that use this tactic—DOMA was a legislative law in the opposite direction but just as complicit in republican small r suicide. Why does everything have to be affirmed at the Federal level? The higher we go up in the process of governance, the more we hand the reigns of governance over to academic elites and away from the hands of the people. We use this hammer to settle all matters of law permanently. Why do we have to do this? Why do things have to be settled permanently? Are we that sick of seeing these kinds of battles on our newspaper’s front page? Why do we care what California does if we live in Utah? Because we know that it trickles up federally and then trickles down as a hammer to the rest of us. We have this collective understanding—think Roe v. Wade. This is the core crux of the Tea Party movement—the return to the Federalist concept that has been eroded essentially since the Civil War—a push to the swinging back of a progressive-internationalist bent that needs to be corrected. What this ruling does is reaffirm the big over the small, top-down governance and not bottom up. And this is why it was bad and why we should be worried about it.

This problem goes clear back to Abraham Lincoln. I don't believe we'll ever return to the anti-federalist (I assume that's what you meant) position until after the cleansing of America.

[Geeswell]

Can anyone else see Satan's attack on the temple? IMO the Church fought for prop 8 because this is where all this is heading......the closing of the temples. I firmly believe this war of prop 8 is a much bigger picture than we think. The appointment of Kagen to the court is Satan's way of ensuring this prop 8 thing goes his way. Once Gary marriage becomes constitutional, the courts will go after the Church and require equal rights in our temples. The abomination of desolation is about to occur. Or the abomination that makes desolate. Gay rights, desolating the temple. The daily sacrifice being stopped for a season.

Erm...I missed something! does it really say somewhere that our temple work will be halted? I thought that we would be spared to do God's work.

Im not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely asking if that is really a prophecy!

Thanks for the insight!

[Amore Vero]

The abomination of desolation is about to occur. Or the abomination that makes desolate. Gay rights, desolating the temple. The daily sacrifice being stopped for a season.

I do not believe that gay marriage is what brings on the abomination of desolation. There are far worse things already happening in temples around the globe. Unjustified divorce & remarriage in the temple is a far more destructive & evil abomination than gay marriage would be. Though of course the Church would never allow gay marriage to happen in the temple at all. But with divorce there is a loop hole, for in rare cases, divorce may be justified, so they let the people decide if they are worthy to enter & remarry. But divorce & remarriage is 'usually' far more destructive & an 'abomination of desolation' than gay marriage will ever be to families, temples or this nation.

'Gay marriage' is the lesser of two evils when compared to most normal 'remarriages'. Most wives would much rather have their husband run off with his 'boy-friend' than a 'girl-friend' & visa versa for husbands.
And just like most everyone, even in the Church, sadly has come to accept & support unjustifed divorce & remarriage today, when 50 years ago most people use to abhore it like we do gay marriage today, the same will happen with 'gay marriage', most will unfortunately also be fooled into accepting & supporting it in 10-20 years from now when someone in their family or friends does it.

Plus gay marriage can never really be 'Constitutional' according to good people & God. A law must be righteous & just to be Constitutional no matter what the government says. Thus good people with the Spirit will never be fooled by or support unconstitutional rulings. This ruling makes no difference to good people, it should just redouble our efforts to become educated about only putting good moral people in office who will live by the Constitution & God's laws.

[durangout]

Can anyone else see Satan's attack on the temple? IMO the Church fought for prop 8 because this is where all this is heading......the closing of the temples. I firmly believe this war of prop 8 is a much bigger picture than we think. The appointment of Kagen to the court is Satan's way of ensuring this prop 8 thing goes his way. Once Gary marriage becomes constitutional, the courts will go after the Church and require equal rights in our temples. The abomination of desolation is about to occur. Or the abomination that makes desolate. Gay rights, desolating the temple. The daily sacrifice being stopped for a season.

W/o a doubt the work of God is under direct attach.

IMO it's not the closing of themple that will be the result of this but the loss of the Church's tax exempt status because we won't allow gay marriage in the temple or other church buildings. Because of the loss of the tax exempt status, there will be a significant two-fold decrease to the operating revenues: outlays to taxes and my guess is that members will contribute less because there will be no tax deductions associated with titihing

W/o question, the work of God will be hindered.

[p51-mustang]

It's because as a society we have removed the relevance of God and natural law. This decision was bound to happen. Many more attacks on the Constitution (and victories for Satan) are bound to happen as well. Without a general consensus of a higher power, the whole thing crumbles. We repent, or we're toast.

Without God, we have no natural law, no natural rights. We're completely vulnerable.

Bingo on that!

As Americans we have always held that "rights" originate with God, that he is the author of them. Rights do not come from govt'. With this in mind, does anyone really think he gave man a right to a homosexual marriage? He gives them free agency to choose homosexuality, but he does not recognize any "right" to gay marriage. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and woman. If homosexuals want to have some sort of union then that is up to them, But dont call it marriage, because it is certainly not that.

One of the reasons America is in decline is because we have forgotten that our rights come from God and not from man. If this is true (and it is), then there is no "right" to gay marriage. A "right" to gay marriage is a construct of man and therefore is not a "right" at all

[ChelC]

It's because as a society we have removed the relevance of God and natural law. This decision was bound to happen. Many more attacks on the Constitution (and victories for Satan) are bound to happen as well. Without a general consensus of a higher power, the whole thing crumbles. We repent, or we're toast.

Without God, we have no natural law, no natural rights. We're completely vulnerable.

Bingo on that!

As Americans we have always held that "rights" originate with God, that he is the author of them. Rights do not come from govt'. With this in mind, does anyone really think he gave man a right to a homosexual marriage? He gives them free agency to choose homosexuality, but he does not recognize any "right" to gay marriage. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and woman. If homosexuals want to have some sort of union then that is up to them, But dont call it marriage, because it is certainly not that.

One of the reasons America is in decline is because we have forgotten that our rights come from God and not from man. If this is true (and it is), then there is no "right" to gay marriage. A "right" to gay marriage is a construct of man and therefore is not a "right" at all

Thank you for that.

Yes Prop 8 is now struck down—I’m perplexed. I’m a student of history and can’t help but see the irony of the LDS Church using the opposite legal argument that they used to plead for plural marriage—the interest of the state in keeping marriage between a man and a women—whereas in the 1880’s the state should but out of such private affairs—marriage was no business of the state. From such a longitudinal view, these arguments seem like sweet justice to the legislative decisions over a century ago—the state has no business in dictating the ideal form of relations between persons. One can’t help but see the plural marriage practitioners rubbing their hands to use this jurisprudence. If the 14th amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law—now in marriage matters—why limit the number to only 2? Are not 3 or 4 party marriages in need of as much equal protection? We could veritably find ourselves back in 1880 arguing the validity of Edmunds-Tucker. One also wonders if this is the elephant in the room for the LDS Church. Are they as frustrated with gay marriage or are they worried about the theological questions that may be raised again over polygamy is the basis for the Manifesto were to be removed by law?

If we remove God from the equation politically, few of our religious beliefs, and even our right to practice our religion wholly can maintain their footing. We can't have one set of rules for church, and another for politics. When I hear people say to leave religion out of politics I want to scream. If you do it, you are denying the Creator. When the majority of us deny the Creator we cannot hold together a moral system of government. People have been prodded into believing that they are hypocrites to live freely while denying a legal recognition of immoral behavior, but once we legally recognize immoral behavior by leaving our religious beliefs at the door when we head to the polls, we have kicked the foundation from under the whole system. Without a constant, nothing is sacred.

I don't think gay marriage is the turning point. The turning point is in our rear view mirror.