Judge's ruling expected in Calif gay marriage case

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge has reached a decision in a landmark case on whether California's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will issue his ruling Wednesday afternoon, court spokeswoman Lynn Fuller said.

His verdict comes in a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to overturn California's voter-approved Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage five months after the state Supreme Court legalized it.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

http://news.yahoo.co..._marriage_trial

[Obama 2012 1,714]

a marriage ban doesn't violate anyone's rights.

There is no 'right' to marriage.

While I; like most sensible people; think gay couples should have the same benefits (and penalties) as heterosexual couples, there is no discrimination is blocking marriage in its defined form from gay couples.

I keep telling people, stop arguing about marriage and make it about the equal benefits under the law for couples. The government should not be dictating this sort of thing anyway. Marriage/union/etc. is a PRIVATE mater.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is no 'right' to marriage.

There certainly is. You have a right to do a lot of things that are not explicitly implied by the Constitution, and any law that inhibits such freedom without reasonable justification, could be challenged.

In Loving v. Virginia decision, the court wrote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There certainly is. You have a right to do a lot of things that are not explicitly implied by the Constitution, and any law that inhibits such freedom without reasonable justification, could be challenged.

In Loving v. Virginia decision, the court wrote:

The opinion of an individual judge does not make something a right. A judge cannot determine 'rights.' A judge is not a legislator.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The opinion of an individual judge does not make something a right. A judge cannot determine 'rights.' A judge is not a legislator.

Specific civil rights are not implicitly articulated in the Constitution, nor should they be (we don't need countless amendments to spell them out). The Constitution provides the framework for logical and reasonable understanding of basic civil rights.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Specific civil rights are not implicitly articulated in the Constitution, nor should they be (we don't need countless amendments to spell them out). The Constitution provides the framework for logical and reasonable understanding of basic civil rights.

Marriage is not a civil right however, it's a government contract as recognized. There is no right to be awarded a contract from the government for any reason. The government can so choose to limit the number of marriages it allows to recognize each year if it wanted to. In many cases marriage contracts are denied if you already have a standing contract with another person, or they can be denied if a particular state doesn't feel you've been married long enough. It can be denied if the state feels that it's not legitimately consentual between two parties, regardless of what might be said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Marriage is not a civil right however, it's a government contract as recognized. There is no right to be awarded a contract from the government for any reason. The government can so choose to limit the number of marriages it allows to recognize each year if it wanted to. In many cases marriage contracts are denied if you already have a standing contract with another person, or they can be denied if a particular state doesn't feel you've been married long enough. It can be denied if the state feels that it's not legitimately consentual between two parties, regardless of what might be said.

You lack an adequate understanding of civil rights and what they mean. The Constitution was never meant to be a dictate of explicit rights of individuals, but rather defining the parameters between society and the individual, with the absolute belief that government was of the people, for the people and by the people. For example, a state law the restricted all those with blue eyes from marrying people with brown eyes would be unconstitutional, for the same reasons why the Supreme Court ruled laws restricting interracial marriage unconstitutional.

[peejay 327]

You lack an adequate understanding of civil rights and what they mean. The Constitution was never meant to be a dictate of explicit rights of individuals, but rather defining the parameters between society and the individual, with the absolute belief that government was of the people, for the people and by the people. For example, a state law the restricted all those with blue eyes from marrying people with brown eyes would be unconstitutional, for the same reasons why the Supreme Court ruled laws restricting interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Ok smart guy. Riddle me this. Why can't three people of any sex marry? Three men, three women, two men & one woman, two women & one man, etc., etc. Why stop at three? Let it all hang out. Go for broke with four or more! Why can't a commune of unlimited people not be allowed to marry as a family unit? Justify anything by claiming that setting the standard definition of marriage violates all their civil rights.

How low does society want to set the bar. How far does society want to cheapen and redefine marriage and family?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You lack an adequate understanding of civil rights and what they mean. The Constitution was never meant to be a dictate of explicit rights of individuals, but rather defining the parameters between society and the individual, with the absolute belief that government was of the people, for the people and by the people. For example, a state law the restricted all those with blue eyes from marrying people with brown eyes would be unconstitutional, for the same reasons why the Supreme Court ruled laws restricting interracial marriage unconstitutional.

No I understand completely. As I said in the instances above, a governmnt can limit contracts it awards if it so chooses to do so. Government cannot discriminate on the couples it awards those contracts to based on their race or color, but all couples in defining marriage do have to have the common sense that one is Male and one is Female. While I know the left hates this argument, one's sexual orientation does not changes ones ability to be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. The contact and the ability to obtain said contract have this factor in most states. Some states have chosen to remove that limitation as is their perogative to do so.