Lds Ched De Mission Steps Down....

[Daniel2]

The right was created by a judge, which interpreted the Constitution in what the voters claim was an incorrect interpretation. They therefore rectified the possibility of that erroneious interpretation through prop 8. It wasn't taken away, it never existed, was artificially inferred and then correctly removed.

Jeff,

As Jaybear was attempting to explain to you earlier in this thread, you need to correct one of your glaring errors: Prior to the vote on Prop 8, the right for LGBT couples to marry in CA, according to the CA Constitution, was recognized and mandated by the entire CA Supreme Court--NOT just "a" (single) judge. That decision by the entire CA Supreme Court is what allowed 18,000+ same-sex couples the right to legally, lawyfully marry one another (and who's marriages remain legally and lawfully recognized, in CA, to this day).

Darin

[Daniel2]

A split decision among three judges as I recall, two that had a penchant for invention for liberal causes. And equal protection does not mean gay people can marry, anymore than polygamists can, or children or pederasts. It is not a cure all for whatever group wants to change the definition of things.

The voters approved the ballot measure because it corrected a misconception. The motivation is clear even if you do not want to admit to it.

Those already married may or may not be impacted by the final outcome. Simply because a judge attempted to make it a fait acompli in order to force one decision in favor of his position doesn't make it legal in the end.

Woops. I see Jaybear already re-emphasized the correction I made in my last post. My apologies for not reading the entire thread, before responding.'

The CA Supreme Court is comprised of 7 judges, which were widely regarded to be conservatives, most of whom were Republican-appointees. Their decision was a 4-3 split:

Gay marriage ban overturned

State high court's 4-3 ruling prompts celebration, opposition

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 17, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO -— The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country.

But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by an initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.

The campaign over that measure began within minutes of the decision. The state's Catholic bishops and other opponents of same-sex marriage denounced the court's ruling. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who previously has vetoed two bills in favor of gay marriage, issued a statement saying he "respects" the decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn" it.

The ruling was greeted with loud cheering and whooping when it was released at the high court's headquarters here Thursday morning. About 100 people lined up outside to purchase copies of the decision for $10 apiece. Some people bought 10 to 15 copies, calling it a historic document. One man said he planned to give them out as Christmas presents.

Gay groups planned celebrations up and down the state.

"I can finally say I will be able to marry John, the man that I love," said Stuart Gaffney, one of the plaintiffs in the case, referring to his partner of 21 years, John Lewis. "Today is the happiest and most romantic day of our lives."

Conservative and religious-affiliated groups denounced the decision and pledged to bring enough voters to the polls in November to overturn it. Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, called the decision "outrageous" and "nonsense."

"No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn," Staver said.

The decision came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

The court's ruling repeatedly invoked the words "respect and dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Many gay Californians said that even the state's broadly worded domestic partnership law provided only a second-class substitute for marriage. The court agreed.

Giving a different name, such as "domestic partnership," to the "official family relationship" of same-sex couples imposes "appreciable harm" both on the couples and their children, the court said.

The distinction might cast "doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples," George wrote, joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno. All but Moreno were appointed by Republican governors. George was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991.

The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on interracial marriage in California.

The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Fascinatingly, prior to the above decision by the CA Supreme Court, the CA State Legislature had TWICE passed bills authorizing full civil marriage for same-sex couples (in both the Senate and the House), only to have that legistlation vetoed by the governor, who said at the time it was his belief that the CA Supreme Court should decide the issue (he's since changed his mind, and now supports marriage equality, as does his elected replacement).

Interesting, Jeff, that you can casually dismiss a CA Supreme Court ruling as "a misconception," while simultaneously accusing others of being "disingenous" merely because they don't agree with you. Sad.

Darin

[TAO]

I'm sorry, TAO, but I believe you are incorrect that Judge Walker's decision to keep his personal life private had anything to do with the reason why this case proceeded to a higher court--it was clear to everyone watching that this case was going to be appealed, regardless of the ruling--and will likely continue to be appealed until it reaches SCOTUS.

Judge Walker's relationship and/or sexual orientation has had nothing to do with why this case is in appeal, nor should it, IMO. Further, I also don't believe his relationship-status or his sexual orientation will it eventually have any bearing on how higher courts rule on the issue.

Darin

Read these two articles: http://en.wikipedia....isqualification, http://en.wikipedia....ution_%28law%29

The only requirement for dismissing a judge is that his impartiality might be questioned. It doesn't matter if it's part of his personal life or not. If he has a chance of bias, they can dismiss him, through the process of substitution.

That's the way the courts are =/. If the appeal court were to reject it, it would be for double jeopardy, not for lack of basis to substitute.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

As Jaybear was attempting to explain to you earlier in this thread, you need to correct one of your glaring errors: Prior to the vote on Prop 8, the right for LGBT couples to marry in CA, according to the CA Constitution, was recognized and mandated by the entire CA Supreme Court--NOT just "a" (single) judge. That decision by the entire CA Supreme Court is what allowed 18,000+ same-sex couples the right to legally, lawyfully marry one another (and who's marriages remain legally and lawfully recognized, in CA, to this day).

Darin

That is incorrect. When you say "entire Supreme Court" I presume you are diligently overlooking the split decision in an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sows decision. The activist judges interpreted something that wasn't there and created something artificial and used a loop hole of sorts in the Constitution by which they could put forth their agenda. The people used a constitutional tool to clarify the position for the judges, thus closing off their interpretation.

The 18,000+ were allowed to marry in hopes of creating an overwhelming situation where the reversal of the activist judges would be difficult, even though the common practice was to suspend such decisions until higher courts made the final adjudication. It is a shame that those 18K couples were little more than pawns in a political power game.

[Jeff K.]

Woops. I see Jaybear already re-emphasized the correction I made in my last post. My apologies for not reading the entire thread, before responding.'

The CA Supreme Court is comprised of 7 judges, which were widely regarded to be conservatives, most of whom were Republican-appointees. Their decision was a 4-3 split:

Fascinatingly, prior to the above decision by the CA Supreme Court, the CA State Legislature had TWICE passed bills authorizing full civil marriage for same-sex couples (in both the Senate and the House), only to have that legistlation vetoed by the governor, who said at the time it was his belief that the CA Supreme Court should decide the issue (he's since changed his mind, and now supports marriage equality, as does his elected replacement).

Interesting, Jeff, that you can casually dismiss a CA Supreme Court ruling as "a misconception," while simultaneously accusing others of being "disingenous" merely because they don't agree with you. Sad.

Darin

As I said, a split decision and no they were NOT regarded as conservative judges. That is a myth promulgated by the left in order to bolster credibility. It is false.

The fact the state court upheld the initiative 6-1 reflects the Constitutionality that even liberal judges cannot overcome without undermining the rule of law. The initiative process corrected an activist misconception within the law.

Funny how you guys keep forgetting to mention that part.

[Jeff K.]

Interesting, Jeff, that you can casually dismiss a CA Supreme Court ruling as "a misconception," while simultaneously accusing others of being "disingenous" merely because they don't agree with you. Sad.

What is sad is how you seemingly misconstrue and avoid the very direct issues involved and personalize it. It remains amazing to me that marriage is so important to you given you are willing to toss it under the bus for your proclivity in the matter.

Now that is indeed both ironic and sad.

[cdowis]

The only requirement for dismissing a judge is that his impartiality might be questioned.

If a judge can personally benefit from their decision, that is indicate a conflict of interest.

It doesn't matter if it's part of his personal life or not. If he has a chance of bias, they can dismiss him, through the process of substitution.

But only if he were to disclose those pertinent facts. If he chooses to conceal facts which would indicate a possible conflict of interest, one could conclude that concealment would strengthen the case for bias.

[cdowis]

which would be the case for any judge that a reasonable person could say wants to protect marriage or be married, so then we are left with no one to hear the case because any judge will have granted themself a valuable legal right in which that judge regardless of sexual orientation could be accused of having a particularized interest in.

Do you see how unreasonable the argument is? If it is reasonable to question a gay judge in a relationship then it is reasonable to question a hetero judge in a relationship, or a judge not in a relationship who has ever expressed a desire to be married or has been in a long term relationship.

Do you see how silly that argument is?

Obviously we do not live in a perfect world, with judges having complete objectivity.

But that is not the issue. The issue is whether one will disclose any possible conflict of interest, where he or she will personally benefit from a decision. After the disclosure, motions can be made for that individual to recluse himself from the trial. Only after that process can the judicial system ensure that all parties are heard and a fair trial begin.

You can question whether a gay or heterosexual judge can be unbiased, BUT then the trial begins after all the arguments and facts are made known.

But Walker chose not to disclose those facts until after the trial. It is reasonable to question NOW whether his personal interest in the case caused him to conceal revelant facts about his personal life.

Any judge, of any persuasion, could have sat on the bench, regardless of his personal bias and interest. That is how things are. BUT they need to disclose any potential conflict of interest.

Judge Walker caused harm to the legal process in this situation.

[Daniel2]

That is incorrect. When you say "entire Supreme Court" I presume you are diligently overlooking the split decision

I apologize for my poor choice of words. Yes, the CA Supreme Court's decision was not unanimous--it was a 4-3 split vote (just as the article I quoted here in this thread said it was). When I poorly said "entire Supreme Court," it was not my intent to imply that the decision was unanimus--merely that the issue was considered and judged by the whole panel of judges serving on the court--not merely one judge, as you've repeatedly said (presumably speaking about Judge Walker, though even that hasn't been clear, which is why I quoted the other articles to try to clarify the historial road we've travelled, up to this point, including the ruling by the Supreme Court, itself).

Rather, the CA Supreme Court passed down the ruling that recognized the right for same-sex couples to marry by a 4-3 decision. Again, the information I offered in this thread obviously showed that, so I'm not sure why anyone would presume I was "diligently overlooking" that it was a split decision--but if any thought I was being deliberately disingenuous on that point, I can assure you I was not, and again, I apologize.

The activist judges interpreted something that wasn't there and created something artificial and used a loop hole of sorts in the Constitution by which they could put forth their agenda.

"Activist judges" is almost always a derrogatory term used by individuals that merely means the user is upset or disagree with any given court's judicial decision.

The people used a constitutional tool to clarify the position for the judges, thus closing off their interpretation.

Yes, the people used a constitutional tool--but not "to clarify the position for the judges," but to REVERSE or OVERTURN the desision of their judges (some may see my clarification as splittinig hairs on that point--I personally think there's a world of difference between "clarifying" vs. "overturning."

The 18,000+ were allowed to marry in hopes of creating an overwhelming situation where the reversal of the activist judges would be difficult, even though the common practice was to suspend such decisions until higher courts made the final adjudication. It is a shame that those 18K couples were little more than pawns in a political power game.

I would suggest the situation is probably "overwhelming" enough that Prop 8 will not stand, regardless of the 18,000+ couples' marriages.

Darin

[cdowis]

"Activist judges" is almost always a derrogatory term used by individuals that merely means the user is upset or disagree with any given court's judicial decision.

I can agree or disagree with an activist judge, but an activist judge is one who goes beyond the law, the Constitution, an becomes a law maker. Imposes his personal opinion on what the law *should* say, and becomes a one person legislator. He makes law, rather than interprets it.

The reason that I often disagree with that judge is the simple fact that liberal judges are more likely to take that role. Part of conservative values is to interpret law, rather than to legislate from the bench.

Yes, the people used a constitutional tool--but not "to clarify the position for the judges," but to REVERSE or OVERTURN the desision of their judges (some may see my clarification as splittinig hairs on that point--I personally think there's a world of difference between "clarifying" vs. "overturning."

I interpret what you mean here is a judges can assume the role of dictator.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

The activist judges interpreted something that wasn't there and created something artificial and used a loop hole of sorts in the Constitution by which they could put forth their agenda.

"Activist judges" is almost always a derrogatory term used by individuals that merely means the user is upset or disagree with any given court's judicial decision.

Depends, some like activist judges, it helps do away with messy things like Constitutional democracy.

In this case, the judges set a precedent that had no prior appearence in the Constitution or the courts, there was not "law" beyond the that of a minority seeking to force the majority to redefine marriage to their will.

Since the judges saw fit to use a Constitutional loophole to put forth their argument, the people decided to close that loophole that the judges understood the Constitution and the will of the people through the Constitutional process more clearly. While the activism of the judges created a close split decision, the subsequent position of Prop 8's constitutionality within the California Supreme Court was fairly strong. 6 - 1 I believe it was in which Prop 8 by (and this is Jaybear's position) the highest court in CA stating the constitutionality of the proposition was correct and within the limits of Constitutional law. Certainly less close than a split decision with activist judges.

To reverse a bad rulling is not a bad thing. To overturn a bad ruling is not wrong. To follow the Constitution which reflects the will of the people is not wrong. I note that all of the rights for marriage existed in CA except for the redefinition.

[Zeta-Flux]

'm sorry, TAO, but I believe you are incorrect that Judge Walker's decision to keep his personal life private had anything to do with the reason why this case proceeded to a higher court--it was clear to everyone watching that this case was going to be appealed, regardless of the ruling--and will likely continue to be appealed until it reaches SCOTUS.

Judge Walker's relationship and/or sexual orientation has had nothing to do with why this case is in appeal, nor should it, IMO. Further, I also don't believe his relationship-status or his sexual orientation will it eventually have any bearing on how higher courts rule on the issue.

Darrin, you do realize that Walker could have assigned this case to someone else? When he chose not to do so, his personal private life was not his to keep private, inasmuch as it had a bearing on whether or not Walker could give himself a valuable legal right which he had a particularized interest in using. Judge Walker's relationship has nothing to do with this case on appeal, per se, but it has *EVERYTHING* to do with whether or not he has a particularized interest in using the valuable legal right he gave himself. And thus it bears directly on whether or not his original opinion could be rationally view as being biased. And that is important for a number of reasons, one of which is that some other courts have already started using Walker's ruling to defend their own positions (against precedent from higher courts, no less).

[Daniel2]

What is sad is how you seemingly misconstrue and avoid the very direct issues involved and personalize it.

Marriage is a personal issue. How else should anyone take it, if one's fellow citizens voted away a right that the government previously recognized...?

As more and more conservatives are recognizing, the conservative position most often seems to be to limit government's role and preserve the individual's personal freedoms and liberties. As such, a growing number of conservatives who support a limited government are suggesting that it shouldn't be government's role to mandate to consenting, adult citizens who their choice of spouse is or should be.

It remains amazing to me that marriage is so important to you given you are willing to toss it under the bus for your proclivity in the matter.

I have not and do not advocate "tossing marriage under the bus." I am a staunch supporter of both civil and religious marriage, both for families made up of the traditional variety (i.e. the traditional roles of a husband and wife, and/or a father and a mother raising children), as well as the more recently-recognized variety (i.e. a same-sex couple; as well as same-sex couples raising children). These two types of families (along with the many other varieties that comprise different familial make-ups) can all peacefully and compatibly coexist, side-by-side, on the same street, town, and nation, neither one "robbing" or "taking away" anything from the other.

Darin

[Zeta-Flux]

"Activist judges" is almost always a derrogatory term used by individuals that merely means the user is upset or disagree with any given court's judicial decision.

Of course it is a derrogatory term, but it is not merely such. There are a number of significant measures.

For example, in the Walker case, instead of limiting his ruling to the couple before the courtroom, Walker took the extraordinary step to apply his ruling to all of California. Instead of granting a stay on his judgement (which was immediately granted by the appeals court) he chose to try to ramrod his decision.

He used scare tactics, in videotaping the court, and then (against his own word, the court's rules, and even a ruling from the appeals court) published some of the viedotape.

Activist judges invent new rights, using language such as "our *modern* understanding of human rights..." (rather than pointing out where, in the enumerated powers in the constitution, such a right exists).

etc...

etc...

[Jaybear]

CDOWIS: I can agree or disagree with an activist judge, but an activist judge is one who goes beyond the law, the Constitution, an becomes a law maker. Imposes his personal opinion on what the law *should* say, and becomes a one person legislator. He makes law, rather than interprets it.

The reason that I often disagree with that judge is the simple fact that liberal judges are more likely to take that role. Part of conservative values is to interpret law, rather than to legislate.

I am glad to know that someone figured out the difference. So that I can better understand the distinction between striking down legislation which violates constitutional rights and "imposing his personal opinion of what the law should say", can you tell me which of these ruling falls in which camp, and why?

The ruling which set aside laws agaisnt interracial marriages?

The ruling that required schools in the south to desegregate?

The ruling that struck down laws criminalizing sodomy?

The ruling that required that criminals be given access to an attorney?

The ruling that struck down Chicago's 30 year ban on handguns?

The ruling that declared corporations have constitutional rights?

Frankly, when you call someone an "activist" judge or a dictator, for all practical purposes, that means rational discussion is over.

[Zeta-Flux]

Here is a thorough explanation of why the filing was timely, and how Walker had a particularized interest; it is the reply brief from the Prop. 8 proponents: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56103459/Doc-787

[Zeta-Flux]

I am glad to know that someone figured out the difference. So that I can better understand the distinction between striking down legislation which violates constitutional rights and "imposing his personal opinion of what the law should say", can you tell me which of these ruling falls in which camp, and why?

The ruling which set aside laws agaisnt interracial marriages?

The ruling that required schools in the south to desegregate?

The ruling that struck down laws criminalizing sodomy?

The ruling that required that criminals be given access to an attorney?

The ruling that struck down Chicago's 30 year ban on handguns?

The ruling that declared corporations have constitutional rights?

Frankly, when you call someone an "activist" judge or a dictator, for all practical purposes, that means rational discussion is over.

No, it isn't over. It just means that we have to delve into the actual rulings and see what basis the judge gave for them. Did he invent the ruling from his understanding of current popular belief? Or did she cite previous precedent?

Was his ruling later overruled on constitutional grounds, and shown to be extremely lacking? Was her basis for the ruling a "modern understanding of human rights" or based in case law?

etc...

etc...

[frankenstein]

Here is a thorough explanation of why the filing was timely, and how Walker had a particularized interest; it is the reply brief from the Prop. 8 proponents: http://www.scribd.co...6103459/Doc-787

except that the proponents use 6th or 11th Circuit case law to claim they did not have a duty to the 9th; which is like my cousins telling their Dad "Well Aunt Jo, your sister, doesn't make her kids wear the Church clothes all day on Sunday so we do not have to either"

[Walden]

Of course it is a derrogatory term, but it is not merely such. There are a number of significant measures.

For example, in the Walker case, instead of limiting his ruling to the couple before the courtroom, Walker took the extraordinary step to apply his ruling to all of California. Instead of granting a stay on his judgement (which was immediately granted by the appeals court) he chose to try to ramrod his decision.

He used scare tactics, in videotaping the court, and then (against his own word, the court's rules, and even a ruling from the appeals court) published some of the viedotape.

Activist judges invent new rights, using language such as "our *modern* understanding of human rights..." (rather than pointing out where, in the enumerated powers in the constitution, such a right exists).

etc...

etc...

I love when those opposed to marriage rights use the "scare tactics" argument ("He [judge Walker] used scare tactics,") despite the fact that we were forced to listen to their scare tactics about how our society would crumble without marriage protections for heterosexuals, how our children would be indoctrinated into homsexuality, etc. Black pot, meet black kettle.

Following your logic about activist judges and human rights, I would conclude that you are a big supporter as well of Plessy vs. Ferguson, which laid the groundwork for Jim Crow laws and the "separate but equal" clause. Oh wait, that was overturned by those "activist" judges in Brown vs Board of Education when they decided that "colored" kids should have the same rights to an education as whites. Darn those human rights activists!

[Jeff K.]

Walden, you do realize that Plessy v. Ferguson went against the vote of the people allowing freedom for African Americans. In other words Plessy v. Ferguson is more a proponent of your type of judicial activism, not a reflection of the constitutional will of the voters within a state.

[Jaybear]

Walden, you do realize that Plessy v. Ferguson went against the vote of the people allowing freedom for African Americans. In other words Plessy v. Ferguson is more a proponent of your type of judicial activism, not a reflection of the constitutional will of the voters within a state.

Wrong once again. Plessy was a conservative ruling.

In Plessy, the court upheld Louisiana state law imposing segregation.

Hardly judicial "activism" if you do nothing to prevent states from engaging in systematic discrimination.

[Jeff K.]

I am sorry I was thinking Dredd Scott versus Sanford in which judicial activism denied a states right to recognize the freedom of an African American slave. Reversing earlier precedent which stated that once an African American was free, he could not be enslaved again.

In other words the judges pushed forth their own agenda. The tyranny of judges making such decisions can indeed be very wrong.

[Jaybear]

I am sorry I was thinking Dredd Scott versus Sanford in which judicial activism denied a states right to recognize the freedom of an African American slave. Reversing earlier precedent which stated that once an African American was free, he could not be enslaved again.

In Dred Scott, the Court overturned the Missiouri compromise, as violating the property rights of the slave owner.

My understanding is that decisions that strike down legislation you like are "activist" rulings. So in that sense, it was an "activist" ruling.

In other words the judges pushed forth their own agenda. The tyranny of judges making such decisions can indeed be very wrong.

So what was the agenda of the Dred Scott court, that leads you to conclude that it was "activist" ruling. My impression was that they were called upon to interpret the meaning of the property, and did so without regard to our modern notion of human rights.

[Zeta-Flux]

I love when those opposed to marriage rights use the "scare tactics" argument ("He [judge Walker] used scare tactics,") despite the fact that we were forced to listen to their scare tactics about how our society would crumble without marriage protections for heterosexuals, how our children would be indoctrinated into homsexuality, etc.

Are you trying equate the scare tactics of a judge in a courtroom with the scare tactics of some political groups in public advertisements?? Very different venues there.

[Jeff K.]

In Dred Scott, the Court overturned the Missiouri compromise, as violating the property rights of the slave owner.

My understanding is that decisions that strike down legislation you like are "activist" rulings. So in that sense, it was an "activist" ruling.

So what was the agenda of the Dred Scott court, that leads you to conclude that it was "activist" ruling. My impression was that they were called upon to interpret the meaning of the property, and did so without regard to our modern notion of human rights.

You should also look at history a bit. For instance. Because Scott was taken to Il. which is a state prohibiting slavery (disallowing it), his argument was based on the state laws, laws chosen by the people in a vote, that in effect, he was free.

Judicial activism overturned the will of the people in that state, judicial activism ignored the precedent that any slave, once freed remained free, and turned the individual into chattel.

Think about it before you advocate your brand of judicial activism.