Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Something I thought of--this might end up not really being challenged politically at least. Since Obama's stance on it is totally cloudy but agrees with the conservative stance on it, no Republicans are making to much noise about it, but they also just confirmed a new judge today so we'll see if they do a few days from now or not.

Originally Posted by JohnWOlin

Something I thought of--this might end up not really being challenged politically at least. Since Obama's stance on it is totally cloudy but agrees with the conservative stance on it, no Republicans are making to much noise about it, but they also just confirmed a new judge today so we'll see if they do a few days from now or not.

Obama's stance is not cloudy. He doesn't support gay marriage. He supports civil unions.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Every scholar?

Like these?

Scholars: Prop 8 Ruling May Be Tough To Overturn : NPR

Or this one? Shannon Minter Gives Analysis Of Prop 8 Ruling | RENWL

The decision is meticulously crafted. Judge Walker reviewed the entire record and made detailed factual findings about all of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. He also supported his ruling on multiple legal grounds. For example, he found both that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation are subject to the highest level of constitutional protection, but that Prop 8 would fail even under the lowest level of protection because it serves no legitimate purpose. This is a remarkably careful, thorough, and deliberate decision, obviously written with an eye to presenting appellate courts with the strongest possible factual and legal basis for the ruling.

Or here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html

But Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern Law School, said that “if the Supreme Court does not want to uphold same-sex marriage, its job has been made harder by this decision.”

The reason, he said, is that while appeals courts often overturn lower-court judges on their findings of law — like the proper level of scrutiny to apply to Proposition 8 — findings of fact are traditionally given greater deference.

“They are supposed to take as true facts found by the district court, unless they are clearly erroneous,” he said. “This opinion shows why district courts matter, even though the Supreme Court has the last word.”

Or this one: Analyzing the Prop 8 WIN: A Few Large Points « Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Most of the decision (the first 109 pages) is the “factual findings.” This is crucial, and here’s why. On appeal, Judge Walker’s conclusions of law are basically irrelevant. Questions of law are decided fresh on appeal, and the trial court’s thoughts on the law are entitled to no deference. On the other hand, only a trial court can make factual findings. A Court of Appeal must give great deference to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when those findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony. Judge Walker knows this. He knows that his primary role in this case is to weigh the credibility of the evidence that was presented at trial and apply the facts that were proven to the law.

So basically Navy, in going over again the analysis I can find using google searches, it is almost unanimous that at the very least it will be difficult for the higher courts to overturn the ruling. Now, this is not all the judges doing. The group who defended prop 8 did an absolutely embarrassingly bad job, presenting only 2 witnesses, neither of whom was particularly well spoken or credible, and having no arguments as to what harm gay marriage would cause.

So, Navy Pride, where are all these legal experts you spoke of? Can you link some to us?

I have found the legal expert that Navy Pride was speaking about! Clearly this is an excellent case for the social conservative vision of marriage and the rational basis for why Walker's decision should be overturned.



And yes, I'm being a smartass. It's 3 in the morning and this article is freaking hilarious.

Best hilarious story from this issue: American Family Association - Action Alert

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

Originally Posted by texmaster

LOL I wouldn't if I were you.

Oh, I think he made the right choice.

Not a single study showed any common traits or natural behavior in even a majority of homosexuals and the ones that keep getting peddled around here are based off questionnaires filled out in private or based off fruit flies or twin studies and each and ever time there was never a proven pattern in even 75% of the subjects of the study. And no legitimate scientist or therapist would ever base their findings off such an uncontrolled environment as a private questionnaire. Its laughable to say the least.

Firstly, as I have told you several times, questionnaires are the most reliable methods in which to conduct studies. They eliminate bias that can occur during interviews. You do not know what you are talking about when you say the opposite... as I have told you MANY times.

Secondly, there is no conclusive study that has determined that sexual orientation is caused by purely biological reasons. The prevailing opinion amongst researchers is that sexual orientation... both hetero and homo... is caused by a combination of the following factors: biological, genetic, biochemical/hormonal, and environmental. An interesting study that came out of Sweden, however, did show that MRI scans of the brains of gays had similarities to those of the brains of people of the opposite sex, rather than their own. This is far from conclusive, but does lead one to believe that there is a biological component to sexual orientation. Here is an excerpt from Savic and Lindstrom's study which discusses both the sizes and symmetry of the brain hemispheres in each of the sexes, and in the location of the amygdala's functioning in emotion in both sexes:

Past research has found that male and female brains are different, on average. This research finds that two brain measures differ based on sexual orientation: cerebral symmetry and how the amygdala functions. First, they confirm a previously reported sex differences in cerebral size asymmetry. In straight men, the right hemisphere is greater than the left and in women, they are the same size. Savic and Lindstrom find in contrast that gays are sex-atypical: the hemispheres are the same size in gay men and for lesbians, the right hemisphere is larger than the left. This is not unexpected given the previous differences in verbal skills (favoring gay males over straights) and visuospatial tasks (favoring straight males).

The amygdala is often researched in relation to the role it plays in emotion and anxiety. Recent research indicates that the right amygdala activates in men and the left in women during the processing of emotion. From these locations in the amygdala then connections are made to other regions in brain which again are different in men and women. In women, the connections may be more likely to activate emotion, whereas in men action may be the more likely result. Again, Savic and Lindstrom found sex atypical function for gays and lesbians. Gay men looked like straight women and lesbians looked like straight men, albeit the similarity was less for the lesbians.
Study examines brain differences related to sexual orientation — Warren Throckmorton

Now, the authors caution us that this is not conclusive and needs both repetition and further research. But it does move us towards a partial biological component of sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by Redress

Best hilarious story from this issue: American Family Association - Action Alert

That is the best laugh I have had in a long, long while.

Hmmm... I am actually doing a study of the literature on recent research done on sexual orientation. Current research seems to be leading towards a biological explanation, based both in differences in the hypothalamus and in the amygdala (connections that manage how emotion is processed). The development of these parts of the brain, occurs during the fetal and/or neo-natal state. More research needs to be done. Much of the information I am coming across is less than 20 years old; the majority less than 10. Also, findings, thus far, seem to point towards correlation. No causation has been determined... yet. It is interesting, though to see the focus of where this research is headed.

Once I compile the study of the literature, I will post excerpts and findings.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

They don't call it religious beliefs they call it "tradition" and it's much more important to make sure that the traditional gender roles of marriage are state mandated than to fight divorce. I mean clearly women and men play different roles in a marriage and a child is denied something important when they are missing a mother or father. They don't tell you exactly what that something important is, but they argue that it is essential to the institution and must be protected or the social norms of marriage will decay to the point that no one wants to get married.

First excerpt: why?
Second excerpt: In divorce, they're often missing a mother or father.

I think much of this conversation is irrelevent because the constitution says that all men are created equal and are equally protected by the constitution. When that was written, both homosexuals, blacks, and women didn't have equal rights. Would anybody here argue that there should be laws preventing blacks from getting married? Laws preventing women from voting?

Gays from getting married? Maybe you don't support it, but having a law designed to prevent it is unconstitutional. And while some of you may not support gay marriage, you know who does? Everybody in my generation. Sorry, folks, you're fighting a losing battle and equality will win.

I couldn't bring myself to read through this whole thread (I'm new here and I'm not used to communicating with people who are opposed to gay marriage - I think it's absolutely disgusting that people still think this way) but did anybody bring up the fact that it was a Reagan appointed, HW Bush re-appointed judge that made this decision? There's no way it's being overturned, thank god.

Conservatives are supposed to believe that the government should stay out of our private lives. I'm split, because I don't like the Republicans we've had in office lately so I sometimes wish they clung to their dying and unjust vision of social conservatism. However, even if it makes them more popular, I'd like to see the Republican candidates enter into the 21st century and admit that the way homosexuals have been treated in this country is a travesty. And maybe some of those candidates will make great leaders, too, who knows?