Today a judge took a legal step that is sadly a big personal leap for him. Legal? Yes. Scary as hell personally for him? I'm assuming so. I would be scared as hell and every personal protection I could buy would be within reach tonight if I were him. I classify him as an honorable and brave man. The haters will classify him as a public enemy.
This judgment is sound legally. Prop 8 gave the majority the vote over the minority - which is wrong to do. Using a bible or personal fear to rule out the right for over 100 legal rights for people is wrong. This country is listening to a minority of a new religious group I call "Selective Christians" that cherry pick the bible to justify their fear, hate, and wish to control. They are loud. They are scary. They are out to convince you that people like me are out to take everything you own while I fornicate on your Sunday sofa in front of your kids.
Okay, back from my random and on to my rumble.
I have on my little laptop, a full copy of the findings by the United States Court For The Northern District Of California. I strangely like reading these things. It is just fact. No commentary from a pundit. No snippets that barely brush fact just to rile me up. Best of all when I'm attacked in a forum or on a post I can directly quote the correct information in response.
The first thing that struck me was the number of applications for marriage that California received from June 17, 2008 to November of 2008 when prop8 passed. Are you ready for this? 18,000. That's right folks. 36,000 gay people applied. That's just the people that want to marry. That's a pretty good indicator that there are a lot more gays than the Selective Christians want you to believe are Americans, because if you extrapolate out to the gays that aren't interested in marriage and single gays just in Ca. then say we have at least 3/4 that many in each of the rest of the states then I'm thinking there is more than a handful. Then we can factor in the bi's. Just thinking about the numbers should be making those SC's shudder! (Yes as a matter of fact I am giggling right now!).
The brave plaintiff's challenged prop8 under the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th amendment came about because of the Dred Scott decision. That decision held black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. In short the amendment was created to give equality to all Americans.
I quote the decision "Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 22, 2009, naming as defendants in their official capacities California’s Governor, Attorney General and Director and Deputy Director of Public Health and the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk(collectively “the government defendants”). Doc #1. With the exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, Doc #39, the government defendants refused to take a position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and declined to
defend Proposition 8. Doc #42 (Alameda County), Doc #41 (Los Angeles County), Doc #46 (Governor and Department of Public Health officials).
They wouldn't defend prop8!! In step the zealots to defend their bill of hate.
Passages follow that to me are infuriating, to you they may be dry. What it boils down to is plaintiffs are stating that it's unconstitutional, defendants are stating that marriage is for procreation and the gays are going to infiltrate the schools. "During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s United States District Court For the Northern District of California interest in regulating marriage.” Tr 3038:7-8. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.” Tr 3037:25-3040:4.
A favorite point in the decision for me was this: defendants "failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.".
This thing basically boils down to marriage = kids. That is their defense. They refuse to take seriously that procreation happens outside of marriage, that divorce weakens marriage, that infertile people marry, and that old people marry. The judge did take that into account. He also took into account that this was not an issue that the government had a right to segregate to only straight adults. Any more than it had a right to segregate to only one race.
Bravo to the plaintiffs and Bravo to Judge VAUGHN R WALKER
"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."
No comments:
Post a Comment