PDA

View Full Version : Judge overturns prop 8



John Smith
08-04-2010, 06:34 PM
In a very long ruling (many pages) the judge overturned the California ban on same sex marriage.

This will anger many people who believe the majority should get its way, but the bottom line is there are some areas where our founding fathers had the wisdom to protect from majority rule.

The judge here, apparently, agrees with me that this is one of those areas.

As, I believe, is the right of the Muslims to build their cultural center.



According to the report I heard today; link's not up yet, the judge had asked the attorney supporting prop 8 who gets hurt and how by same sex marriage, and the attorney couldn't think of an answer.

Ian McColgin
08-04-2010, 07:10 PM
The order includes a stay of execution - no sudden rush of gay weddings till all appeals are done.

It appears to be a very careful legally conservative decision.

BrianW
08-04-2010, 07:39 PM
This will anger many people who believe the majority should get its way, but the bottom line is there are some areas where our founding fathers had the wisdom to protect from majority rule.

The judge here, apparently, agrees with me....

It always seems that way, when the court agrees with us. When they disagree, it's activism, not protectionism. ;)

I don't care if gays marry, but I'm not keen on Federal judges overturning State laws that don't concern Federal policy. In my opinion, this decision should have been handed down by the California Supreme Court, not a Fed judge.

Keith Wilson
08-04-2010, 07:44 PM
I would rather it had been done another way; by the legislature or by referendum, but it's a victory for justice anyway.


. . . the judge had asked the attorney supporting prop 8 who gets hurt and how by same sex marriage, and the attorney couldn't think of an answer.This is a question I've posed God knows how many times in the Bilge discussions, and aside from fanciful speculations about sheep or polygamy, no one has ever answered.

paladin
08-04-2010, 11:10 PM
In Alaska, Nobody probably gives a damn, except to the folks that are looking for something to yell about

Captain Intrepid
08-05-2010, 12:19 AM
I don't care if gays marry, but I'm not keen on Federal judges overturning State laws that don't concern Federal policy.

I've only skimmed the ruling, 138 pages of legalese ain't exactly bedtime reading for me, but it seems the judge overturned it because it did concern Federal policy. Specifically Amendment 14 section 1.

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.



This whole affair is a rather delightful (though not unusual) idealogical sea change. Social conservatives want government to meddle in people's affairs and deprive them of rights, and liberals want smaller hands off government.

Gerarddm
08-05-2010, 12:37 AM
Stephen Maturin, in one of the Aubrey-Maturin books, said something to the effect that he wasn't too bothered by gays because 'there is too little enough love in the world as it is'. I always thought that was a perfectly good statement on the matter.

Captain Intrepid
08-05-2010, 12:48 AM
Stephen Maturin, in one of the Aubrey-Maturin books, said something to the effect that he wasn't too bothered by gays because 'there is too little enough love in the world as it is'. I always thought that was a perfectly good statement on the matter.

I though that was Sir Joseph Banks, and they were discussing paederasty, another matter entirely. But the quote applied to this subject? Very appropriate.

Michael Beckman
08-05-2010, 01:48 AM
In Alaska, Nobody probably gives a damn, except to the folks that are looking for something to yell about
ACLU sues over same-sex property taxes
By MARY PEMBERTON
Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the way property taxes are assessed for households headed by same-sex couples.
State regulations as interpreted by the state and the municipality of Anchorage discriminate against same-sex couples by denying property tax exemptions allowed for senior citizens and disabled veterans, said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of ACLU in Alaska.
"We are asking the court to overturn an unconstitutional practice of the state of Alaska. Lesbian and same-sex couples who are homeowners in the state of Alaska are discriminated against," Mittman said at a news conference outside Superior Court in Anchorage.
The ACLU says some same-sex couples are being forced to pay more in property taxes on their homes than married couples, and that is a violation of equal protection rights under the Alaska Constitution.
The lawsuit asks the court to require the state and the municipality of Anchorage to apply the tax exemption to three couples represented in the lawsuit as if they were in marriages the state recognizes. Alaska does not recognize marriage between same-sex domestic partners.
Mittman said married couples can apply for a $150,000 tax exemption regardless if the home is jointly owned or not. Same-sex domestic partners, however, are allowed only half the exemption because the state considers them roommates instead of married couples, he said.
Department of Law spokesman Bill McAllister said it was too early to comment on the lawsuit because it had not been reviewed yet.
Julie Schmidt, 67, and Gayle Schuh, 62, have been together for 33 years. Their bank accounts and real estate holdings are jointly owned. After retiring from long careers in education in Illinois, they moved to Alaska in 2003 and four years ago bought a home in Eagle River. When Schmidt turned 65, they applied for the tax exemption for senior citizens.
Schuh said they have never been allowed the maximum exemption.
"As a retired couple, this hits us in our pocketbooks and we would like some fairness and equity. It would only take a little bit for the state of Alaska to recognize us and give us the maximum benefit of this tax exemption," Schuh said at the news conference. "We would like all committed couples in Alaska to be able to say their state recognizes their commitment to each other and their state believes in equality for all of us."
The other plaintiffs are Julie Vollick, 45, and Susan Bernard, 41, who have been together for seven years and are raising four children in a home they purchased in Eagle River. Vollick has a service-related permanent disability from her 20 years of service in the U.S. Air Force.
Fred Traber, 62, and Larry Snider, 69, have been together for 28 years and got married in California in 2008. They live in an Anchorage condominium that is in Traber's name. Therefore, they have been denied any part of the exemption, the lawsuit says.
"If Snider and Traber were a married couple under Alaska law, the full tax exemption would apply regardless of whether the house were in Traber's name, Snider's name, or held jointly between them," the lawsuit says.
Mittman said the same-sex couples are being penalized for being in relationships.
"They are not roommates... They are family," he said.

John Smith
08-05-2010, 06:40 AM
It always seems that way, when the court agrees with us. When they disagree, it's activism, not protectionism. ;)

I don't care if gays marry, but I'm not keen on Federal judges overturning State laws that don't concern Federal policy. In my opinion, this decision should have been handed down by the California Supreme Court, not a Fed judge.

It's a civil rights issue, and that makes it federal under equal protection under the constitution. You may recall Rodney King: when his beaters were not convicted in the local court, the feds came in and tried them for violating his civil rights.

John Smith
08-05-2010, 06:43 AM
I would rather it had been done another way; by the legislature or by referendum, but it's a victory for justice anyway.

This is a question I've posed God knows how many times in the Bilge discussions, and aside from fanciful speculations about sheep or polygamy, no one has ever answered.

Left to legislation or public referendum, many of our civil rights would never have come to be. The great wisdom in our constitution is the protection of some things from majority rule.

John Smith
08-05-2010, 06:46 AM
JUst for convenience, let me yield to the Gay marriage ban oops thread.

No need for two threads on this topic.