Federal judge's ruling against state's same-sex marriage ban on hold as Prop. 8 backers plan appeal Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 am
A federal judge in San Francisco Wednesday struck down Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, saying that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal treatment.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, August 5, 2010, 6:51 AM
Posted by To Stevep, a resident of the Apperson Ridge neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 8:43 am
I personally am thankful that judges have the power to overturn the will of the voters. Otherwise things such as "separate but equal", Jim Crow laws, and slavery would have been the law of the land decades after the Supreme Court outlawed them.
Posted by Doubt It, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 8:43 am
I don't think so Steve:
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians".
Prop 8 supporters had their chance to prove that gay marriage *harms* and they couldn't do it. All they offered was "morality". It wasn't enough here and it won't be enough for the Supreme Court. The "will" of the California voters was ILLEGAL!
Posted by Michele, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 8:50 am
I think this is a great step forward. There is something called "separation between Church and State". The Church was HEAVILY involved in Prop 8, especially OUTSIDE California and all the money they threw at it. And what are the arguments you hear FOR Prop 8? "Because I was taught to believe... Because the Bible says... Because God says...."
Before you start boo-hooing me... I'm NOT an Athiest or non-believer. I simply agree with the notion that religion and the church should not be involved in passing legislature.
Posted by susan, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:50 am
The Judge should of excused himself from this case, as he was gay. It is a travesty of justice when Judges do not excuse themselfs from cases that they have an interest in. aLSO IT SEEMS WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT IS NO LONGER FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE. Its the POLITICANS AND JUDGES WHO NOW RUN THE COUNTRY.
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:53 am
@ Michele - you seem to imply there is something wrong with being an atheist, agnostic, or simply non-religious. Just because many people choose to not believe in an invisible sky being or flying spagetti monster does not mean they are in anyway less a participant in the debate or human race.
Posted by sueme, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 10:58 am
Do what you want in the privacy of your bedroom, but don't call it marriage when it is not a man and a woman. Words mean something. Many of us seem to have forgotten this. Make up a new word, call them "unions", whatever, but it is not marriage.
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:12 am
@ Susan - Funny how the Prop 8 proponents did not have an issue with Judge Walker being gay. And, we have a justice system for just this reason where a simple majority can pass laws harmful to a minority and inconsistent with the founding principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:17 am
@ Sueme - Yes, words have meaning. Words like tyranny, equality, justice, and fairness have much meaning to a minority group harmed by the irrational and hateful meddling into their private lives by a self-righteous, biased, and dare I say bigoted majority.
Gays and Lesbians are not trying to legislate the rights and freedoms you enjoy, why do you feel compelled to define theirs?
Posted by seems simple enough, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 12:13 pm
What states *should* do is issue civil union licenses to everyone, and have legal rights and privileges attached to those. Because the term "marriage" has religious and moral connotations, marriage licenses could be issued (in addition) by places of worship based on whatever criteria they choose.
That way those who want to protect the concept of marriage can do so without infringing on the legal rights of those who don't meet their criteria...Seems like this might be a compromise satisfying to both sides...
Posted by No on Marriage, a resident of the Hacienda Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I'm with "seems simple enough" - get rid of marriage as a legal term. Undo marriage for everyone. Legal unions for everyone and you and your church can call it whatever you want.
The fact is that the majority can not control the minority even if you feel it is morally wrong.
I wish the people who are so against legalizing gay marriage would spend all that time and energy helping the heterosexuals who can't figure out how to do marriage correctly. Look at the statistics people! Think about how messed up so many marriages are and how so many straight marriages churn out incredibly unhappy and messed up kids.
Being gay is genetic, just like being black. We are all entitled in this country to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can not legislate who gets married. Like it or not. If we could I certainly would not put sexuality at the top of the list of important qualities. How about stupid people not get married? Or ugly people? Or first cousins? Or fat people? Where will it stop? Will we need folks to take a test first? The fact is marriage is a failure of an institution in this country. A 50% pass rate is nothing to be proud of. And of those 50% I wonder how many are miserable, or GAY but stuck in a straight marriage because they were not recognized as humans?
Posted by John, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm
@susan: should Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas therefore recuse himself from any and all affirmative action cases? Judge Walker was appointed to the court by the first President Bush. His sexuality is a strong rumor, but he hasn't addressed the issue himself mainly because it is his own damned business. Just as it is for the thousands of men and women who find their sexuality leads them to members of their own sex. Walker ruled, correctly, that there is nothing in same-sex marriage that has been proven to damage society, but merely to offend the "morals" of the voting public and moral outrage is insufficient ground to deny the rights of a minority in our population.
Posted by colette, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm
You'd have thought someone would have determined that the voters should not have a say so on this long before millions of dollars were spent bringing this proposition to the ballot. If this was the case, why bother voting on it? What a waste of money that California does not have.
Posted by stevep, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 8:14 pm
You're seeing evidence as to why Republicans have always been against judges who tend to legislate from the bench. It usurps the will of the people and undermines the Constitution, but that is no obstacle for flaming liberals.
Another poster said: 'We live in a Pathetic world......' you sure got that right. People that keep calling themselves an oppressed minority when they made an unhealthy lifestyle choice.
What's that? It's not a choice.....it's a genetic defect. Instead of sepnding some much money on lawyers use it to find a cure.
Speaking of money, that's what this is really all about.....you can have civil unions, but they want money and benefits like real married couples, essentially forcing their lifestyle of everyone else that does not view perversion as mainstream.
The Supremes will end this folly next year, but by then many more will have died of AIDS needlessly.
Posted by Stevep is sick, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:09 pm
How is it that in this day and age there are still such bigoted, ignorant people like you? I'm sad for you, that you are so insecure with yourself that you must hate and control others.
We must be tolerant of all citizens in this country. Gay people pay taxes just like you do and it is imperative that their rights are protected. The supreme court already recognizes marriage as a fundamental right and you will have to prove that a gay marriage harms you in some way in order to prevent everyone from having access. I welcome some proof from you SteveP that gay marriage harms you.
You can keep spewing your hate because you have the fundamental right to freedom of speech and although I personally think you are the scum of the Earth I would support your freedom of speech anyway. Why? Because this country would not be what it is if we had no tolerance for one another. Your words can not harm me so go for it! Your words sicken me and I pray you have no children to pass this hate onto but you do have the right to say whatever you want.
The founders of our Country put the three branches of government in place so it would work just the way it did with Prop 8. The tyranny of the majority cannot be imposed on a minority. The judge had no choice to overturn Prop 8 as there is NO EVIDENCE at all that traditional marriages are being harmed by gay marriages. Just as traditional marriages are not harmed by interracial marriages. Those of you who are so concerned about protecting "family" should try to embrace all families. As another poster noted with a 50% divorce rate it seems all families need a little bit of help. Being gay is not a genetic defect and to say that is just uneducated and offensive.
Posted by Brad, a resident of another community, on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:43 pm
The comments of the conservatives here crack me up.
You are fighting to deny someone a right you have. Shame on you. Even when it is determined to be a constitutional right, it will not harm you, and yet you still whine and moan. This is about freedom.
Thankfully, despite your whining, its only a matter of time before freedom extends to homosexuals. The country is increasingly tolerant every year; more and more people have a friend or a family member who is gay and can see what conservative bigotry does to them.
Eventually, gay marriage will be recognized in every state. I find it disgusting that you are so quick to wave a flag in the name of freedom only to turn around and deny it to others because they aren't like you.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2010 at 11:00 am
SteveP said: "Republicans have always been against judges who tend to legislate from the bench."
LOL!! Give me a break!! Republicans are only against judges that don't legislate the way THEY want them to legislate!
Two recent examples that had Republicans jumping for joy: The SCOTUS decision in favor of Citizens United that shelved any kind of political campaign reform and allowed corporations, both domestic and foreign-owned, unlimited funding/influence in political campaigns.
The Federal court decision to lift the off-shore drilling moratorium for the 30-odd new rigs being built before the specific cause was determined for the gulf disaster, before real safety precautions could be implemented and definitely before anyone had an idea of how to address a disaster the magnitude of that in the Gulf. Oh yeah, and the judge in this case reported stock holdings in at least nine companies in the oil and gas industry, including Transocean and Haliburton which were directly involved in the Gulf oil disaster.
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2010 at 7:58 am
Stevep, how do you connect this issue to "many more" dying "needlessly" of AIDS? If gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, and it becomes a part of their culture to openly marry, which perhaps leads to a culture that engages more in monogamy...wouldn't that cut *down* on the spread of AIDS? I realize that marriage does not ensure monogamy, but when you *can't* marry; when you fear openly being with a member of the opposite sex, doesn't it make sense that you'd be more likely to sleep around rather than commit?