Judge Vaughn Walker Hands Victory to Proposition 8 Opponents (CA-Gay Marriage Ban Overturned)

[kpete]

Source: NY Magazine

Judge Vaughn Walker Hands Victory to Proposition 8 Opponents
California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
* 8/4/10 at 4:16 PM

This afternoon U.S District Judge Vaugh Walker ruled in the case brought before him by lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, which argued that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative denying marriage rights to same sex couples in California was unconstitutional. In a decision just handed down to lawyers for both sides, Walker ruled in that Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses." The court, therefore, "orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement." We're staying tuned for more updates and details on the 136-page decision, but these two sentences from the conclusion are critical:

***** Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

That's what history sounds like. Of course, before the ruling was released, lawyers for the opposing side filed a motion to stay his ruling pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Update: Good as You has a PDF of the decision.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html

Read more: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html

---

LIVE VIDEO: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=7592623

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/prop_8_ruled_unconstitutional.php
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/04/98643/california-court-overturns-proposition.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life/

[derby378]

1. Ya beat me to it!

Enjoy your time on the front page of DU! :applause:

[kpete]

2. very happy day for

california, my beautiful state can smile again, kpete

[leftynyc]

3. Excellent news

Just the first step but a beautiful one.

[wildflower]

4. Yay!!!

:bounce:

[HillWilliam]

5. K&R

I'm almost afraid to breathe, I'm so happy!

[X_Digger]

6. woot!!

"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.

IT IS SO ORDERED."

[Greyskye]

7. Excellent!

:toast:

[alp227]

8. It ain't buried just yet, as there can still be appeals.

But thank you Judge Walker. I was watching my recording of the Late Show then checked twitter and voila just two minutes earlier the decision came down!

[Hosnon]

20. That's the best part.

If the 9th Circuit affirms, the protections extend to all the states in that Circuit. And if the Supreme court affirms... BOOM, no state will be able to outlaw gay marriage.

[Tx4obama]

44. Oh yeah, you mean the SCOTUS that has a majority of conservative republicans on it ;( n/t

[Hosnon]

It's not a foregone conclusion. nt.

[vanbean]

77. I feel sorry for the Mormons. They worked awfully hard on this issue.

Poor Mormons, huh? Nobody understands them.

[Capitalocracy]

86. A fool and his money...

That's what happens when you try to fight evolution. You get beaten out by the smarter monkeys.

[metapunditedgy]

136. Unfortunately, it takes a few million years and the dumb monkeys cause a lot of

damage in the process. But yay!

[Jazzgirl]

108. I'm sorry but it has to be said.

Fuck the Mormons!

[Riverman]

130. Those Mormon Boys Are Very Cute!

[Raksha]

236. I heard it from a gay ex-Mormon that the Mormons have a high percentage of gays in their ranks.

I have no reason to doubt him, but I can't begin to speculate as to why. All I know is, I heard this from a gay friend who said he personally had sex with a Mormon missionary--maybe more than one for all I know.

[AllyCat]

254. Huh? I don't feel at all sorry for haters.

If it hadn't been them, it would have been some other Fundie nutballs. I think I understand Fundie nutballs about as well as the next feeling, thinking person.

[tavalon]

260. That was a joke

The person doesn't really feel sorry for the Mormons. None of us do. The person who said a fool and his money are soon parted said it best.

[vanbean]

266. Please be advised, AllyCat. I loathe Mormons.

[AllyCat]

269. Sorry. I misinterpreted your post. :)

Thanks for responding. I don't loathe them, but have no pity when they show up at my doorstep on Saturday mornings.

[KurtNYC]

255. Mormons: marriage must be between one man and one woman and then another

and another


and another

[TheWraith]

74. No it doesn't.

The SCOTUS has four left-leaners and a moderate who is good on gay rights issues who make up the majority.

[Pab Sungenis]

139. Four left leaners?

Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor.

Kagan will never, ever, vote to protect a homosexual's rights. Thus at best we have four votes on the Supreme Court, and that's IF Kennedy votes with us.

[aquart]

Why do you say that about Kagan?

Asking because I don't know.

[Pab Sungenis]

173. Look at her history

especially as Solicitor General.

Add to the fact that the scuttlebutt is that she's a closeted lesbian, and in my experience there is no one more hostile to gay causes than someone in the closet.

[msanthrope]

187. You do realize the total logic fail inherent in your post, right?

I suggest you look at the resume of one of the lead Plaintiffs' attorneys.

Then read HIS history as Solictor General.

Now, please to explain just how being a Solicitor General will prevent Justice Kagan from doing the right thing?

[Pab Sungenis]

205. depakid linked to a great article earlier in the thread.

Here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/religionandpubliclife/2010/06/kagans-free-exercise-clause.html

[msanthrope]

208. So, you still aren't understanding your Solicitor General Logic Fail, are you?

As to the article depakid posted, I don't read legal opinions posted by professors of medieval history, in much the same way I don't take medical advice from supplement sellers.

Further, the article posted refers to her work NOT as Solicitor General, but to her work in the Clinton White House. So again, Solicitor General Logic Fail, part deux.

[Pab Sungenis]

220. And I guess you're not going to touch on her

internalized homophobia.

I see no reason to have any faith in her, other than the fact that she's not a Republican appointee.

[msanthrope]

225. When I see evidence of what you claim,

I might comment on it.

But right now, you've got some vague mumbling about how the position of Solicitor General means you have 'internalized homophobia.' (You do know who Ted Olson is, right? Do you know how much it PAINS me that Ted Olson is proof of your logic fail? Jeebus.)

You've also got an article written by a medieval history professor that bemoans a memo written by Kagan when she was NOT Solicitor General. Well, bemoans that memo third-hand, because it's not like he took the time to actually cite the memo.

When you've got something that approaches a coherent, logical critique of Kagan, I might entertain it.

But right now, IMHO, Jeff Sessions has articulated more coherent opposition to her than you have. And the mere fact that I find the KKK elf more intelligible than you has made me very sad.

[depakid]

239. The memo's on the record- and the medieval history bit is just a hollow attack on the messenger

Here's a rundown on the facts- and Kagan's analysis from the Brookings Institute:

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0623_kagan_rogers.aspx

Now, I don't know whether you have any legal expertise or experience, but what this portends is the very distinct possibility of a plurality decision, with Kagan concurring with 4 members of the court (assuming Kennedy finds no rational basis for Prop 8- an assumption that, based on the differences with the criminal statute in Lawrence decision, I'm not prepared to make).

[msanthrope]

245. "Kagan was advancing President Clinton’s agenda here, not necessarily her own.

Further, she was talking about how a federal statute, RFRA, should be interpreted, not the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause."

That's from your new source.

So, upthread, you cited this "memo" that's "on the record" as apparently what Kagan thought of the Free Exercise Clause. Now, you cite a new source that disputes that....the last source was a medieval professor, and this source is at least a lawyer, so props on that, and could you possibly explain the discrepancy? Which one are you going with?

Further, would you kindly explain to me, with citations from what Kagan actually wrote, your theory of how ANYTHING she has written might give a clue as to how she might vote in an appeal of this case?

To make this easier on all of us, I'm going to suggest you 'match up' clauses of the Constitution. By that I mean, take the clauses of the Constitution mentioned in Judge Walker's decision, and match them up with writings by Kagan.

For example, if Judge Walker writes about Art 6 Section 3, then you find something of Kagan's that deals with Art 6 Section 3. Then make your argument as to why it is a bellwether.

Of course, if you persist in your original theory, then I expect you be able to argue 1) why the attorney you quoted is wrong, and, 2) what Kagan's purported view on the FExC has to do with Prop 8.


And edited to add---

I don't even understand what you are writing about Kennedy....are you suggesting he's going to argue for a different standard of review than one adopted by the district court? Explain how that hurts the appeal????

[depakid]

252. That wasn't Clinton's agenda at all

That reasoning came from her mind sua sponte.

Now, I'm not arguing her position- nor suggesting what Kennedy or Kagan should logically do.

Only what in real life, what they may well do, given their histories.

Big difference.

Moreover, in equal protection jurisprudence, the rational basis standard gives broad leeway to uphold statutes of all sorts (and criminal statutes as in Lawrence or Bowers v. Hardwick before it, are generally seen as worse affronts than civil statutes).

One the other hand, Adam Winkler at UCLA opined some optimism here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/how-will-the-supreme-cour_b_671096.html

If you buy into what the prof says, it all comes down to one's trust in Kagan- and given the sort of analyses involved, expecting a broad based decision that will "impinge" on religious individuals and groups' abilities to discriminate in various matters for their own reasons, that's a leap of faith that I'll have to see to believe.

Another bit that folks haven't considered- the court may well let a 9th Circuit decision stand without cert. as they have in the Southern sex toy cases- that would be the easy way out.

[msanthrope]

263. So, you are going with the medieval history professor, and not the lawyer?

Again, you've failed to explain just how Kagan's purported Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence is a bellwether.

In fact, you've completely failed to make an argument as to what that purported view has to do with Perry. (Hint! Nothing!) Where is the Free Exercise Clause in Perry? Hiding in a footnote?

Heck--you have not provided A SINGLE CITE that indicates that Kagan opined on ANYTHING raised in Perry.

Finally, you've attempted to explain what rational basis standard is. But, you've missed the point.


I've addressed that in reply to your 'rational basis' post downthread. See post #262.

[depakid]

270. LOL- can't let loose of that red herring, eh?

What the memo tells an astute observer is that on balance, Kagan has a propensity to place free exercise on a higher tier than equal protection- and that there are ways that this priority might come into play in the case at hand.

A jurist so inclined would have little finding a legitimate state interest here.

[msanthrope]

272. Dude, have you still not noticed that Perry

isn't concerned with Free Exercise? And apparently, neither is Kagan's memo.

[defendandprotect]

235. I can see the hatred/hostility of Hoover/Nixon in being closeted . . .

but right now, if Kagan is homosexual . . . wouldn't she be yearning to be

free -- so close to it?

I know I'm asking for a psychological opinion on someone you don't know . . .

but I'm asking it anyway -- :)

[depakid]

144. Don't kid yourself

Kennedy could easily find a find a rational basis here, where he didn't in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas">Lawrence.

Also, Kagan appears to have some rather extreme views on the http://blog.beliefnet.com/religionandpubliclife/2010/06/kagans-free-exercise-clause.html">free exercise clause.

In short, we're nowhere near being out of the woods yet.

[alcibiades_mystery]

200. I always rely on you for

non-deflating posts.

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

206. That does indicate some pretty disturbing views on her part.

:scared:

[msanthrope]

247. A rational basis to what?

Explain to me why you think rational scrutiny would be a bad thing.

Edited to add...you have consistently cited Lawrence. Well, you've not cited Lawrence, you've cited the Wikipedia link to it.

Be that as it may, I want to suggest to you that you perhaps take a bit of a look at Romer v. Evans. It's a little more on point.

[depakid]

256. Rational basis is a legal term of art

It doesn't mean "rational" in the vernacular -nor even what a reasonable person should or would think.

Roemer v. Evans is an interesting case. When it came out way back when, the worry was (and still is) the watering down of heightened scrutiny- as we saw previously in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833">Casey (removing fundamental right status for a woman's right to choose).

Most people don't grasp the fact that Roe v. Wade is no longer good law.

Casey changed the status of a woman's fundamental right to choose to something less- though again, that bit about what "undue and substantial burdens" to a woman are- as opposed to what "compelling state interests" and "least restrictive means" are also terms of art- subject (or not) to precedent and degrees (lesser in both instances) of judicial and legislative expediency or prerogative.

So what does Roemer really say in the 2010's?

And how might other rights held by individuals or groups (or the state) weigh against gay marriage?

We'll have to wait & see- though before people knock me on the issue, it would be appreciated if, at the very least, they had a look at the avatar I post with. Up there there in the upper left corner. ;)

[msanthrope]

262. "Aristotle was not Belgian.

The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself. The London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes. I looked 'em up."


Rational basis is not a legal term of art. It is a level of scrutiny. A standard by judging laws that infringe on the liberty and privacy of citizens.

Since you are familiar with Wikipedia, I will assume that you can find a scrutiny chart that will explain to you the levels, and their significance vis-a-vis governmental deference and plaintiff burden.

What you have completely missed, Depakid, is the point of rational basis scrutiny in this decision. What Judge Walker has done, with deftness, and utter fucking brilliance, is make the case that even with rational basis--giving the government the benefit of the doubt, and placing the burden on the Plaintiff---EVEN WITH THAT....Prop 8 fails.

What he's saying, Depakid, is that this right is so fucking fundamental, so goddamn self-evident, when you strip away all the religious hysteria, well-ordered liberty fucking demands that the State do the right thing. He's foreclosed the winger argument that gays are asking for special rights and special protections, and special recognitions....

Further, you missed the point of my reference of Romer....as in, HAD YOU READ THE DECISION, you might have noticed that Judge Walker repeatedly, and unambiguously hearkened back to Kennedy's invocation of the rational basis standard, how Romer FAILED that...and how animus, clearly shown in Romer and in Perry undeniably changes the tenor.

This is not accidental. If you cannot figure out what Romer has to say in 2010, then I suggest you read what Judge Walker wrote, as he explains it with more patience than I have.


Now, I'm going to tell you a little secret they teach us in law school.

Lawyers (good ones) never ask you a question they don't know the answer to. They merely ask questions in order to invite the opposing side to continue digging.



****FYI--You bitch that people don't know that Roe isn't good law, and then opine on Casey? Sadly, your failure to recognize the eclipse of Casey by Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) renders you liable to the same fault. Try reading that Kennedy monstrosity to understand just why Judge Walker did not hesitate to repeatedly remind Kennedy of his words in Romer and Lawrence.

[depakid]

268. Looks to me like despite the feet stamping and insults...

that you're the one who needs to look at the wiki chart about levels of scrutiny (as you seem to miss the most basic point). This isn't http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/19.html">Loving where strict scrutiny was applied.

It's the weakest standard of review- and there are interests that the state can put forward that you might not like, or find rational, but that courts will nevertheless find legitimate.

and btw- here's a hint: outside of cross-x, smart lawyers ask questions all the time that they don't know the answer to with respect to ongoing or potential litigation. They look at all the angles, try to set odds on or predict what's most likely to happen and assess and assign risks to the outcomes. Lawyers who fail to do that aren't serving their clients very well- and are dangerous to have around.

In the present instance, you make the cardinal mistake of assuming that a novel case- and a particular legal theory is bullet proof. Because you want it to be and because the rationale makes sense to you- an in case you haven't noticed- to me.

Unfortunately (and especially with the Supreme Court over the last several decades) boatloads of cases with eminently sensible reasoning go down in flames on appeal- sometimes falling to outright sophistry involving twists of logic far in excess of what I've posited could happen here.

It's pretty well guaranteed that 4 justices will find a legitimate state interest, which leaves us with what Kennedy and Kagan might do (or by the time the case is considered for cert and/or argument, possibly what a Ginsburg replacement would do).

You don't know the answer to that- and neither do I- though it bears mentioning that there are very good reasons why GLBT groups and the ACLU warned against a federal court case, and issued this statement about it last year:

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/lgbt/make_change_20090527.pdf

Let's hope that they were incorrect.

[msanthrope]

273. Do you read the links you post?

"In California, we won marriage in the courts but then lost it at the ballot. Now that the California
Supreme Court has refused to overturn that vote, we need to return to the state ballot box to win
marriage back."

Yeah. That worked. Luckily, Kristin Perry, Ted Olson and David Boies didn't get the memo.



I hope that at some point you actually read the decision.

[depakid]

275. Yep- and I've read the salient points of the decision

(There was also in an interesting bit in California Lawyer about the process/strategy earlier this year as well):

http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=906575&evid=1

You seem to think that you've won the war- I don't think so at all, though there are reasons to be encouraged about the facts adduced at trial reducing the risk of major damage.

[msanthrope]

276. Try reading the whole thing. Not the Wikipedia version.

No, we haven't won the war.

But until you read the whole thing, you won't realize the scope of the next battle.


Good night.

[depakid]

277. I think I know how to read a case

and discern the salient points.

:eyes:

and how to figure out what the various appeals courts' options and the probabilities are without wearing rose colored glasses.

Indeed, I can think of several way appeals courts can affirm the district court's decision and still not rule decisively for gay marriage. Hopefully, the legal team involved can too.

[SteveG]

163. Remember it was Justice Kennedy

who was the deciding vote in the case that overturned the Texas sodomy laws.

[heliarc]

231. Republicans can be social libertarians.

And, I think if I'm not too naive in saying this... Ted Olson (on the Bush Side in Bush V.Gore) wouldn't quite be fighting this fight on our side if there wasn't a clear win. If you read the closing arguments in the case you realize that only a moron would find in favor of Prop 8. The arguments on our side were some of the best I've ever heard. They were epic and beautiful and recall Loving v. Virginia. I think it tips the court in our favor. There is such a clear distinction in argument as to make this particular case a possible silver bullet. I hope so at least.

[KamaAina]

47. If the Supreme Court affirms?

Maybe if it takes long eough to get through the Ninth Circuit, and we get to appoint Fat Tony's or Kennedy's (both age 74) replacement in the interim. Otherwise, not so much.

[TBF]

60. 9th Circuit shouldn't be a problem -

hopefully it will take a bit to get to the Supreme Court (but I don't see Kennedy overturning it).

[Capitalocracy]

89. Really?

I didn't know that's how it worked. So depending on what circuit you're in, the local interpretation of the law is totally different?

:yoiks:

[Hosnon]

101. For the most part.

If the 9th affirms, every advocate of gay marriage in any federal district in that Circuit (i.e., AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA) will have binding precedent to support their position. A federal district judge could ignore the ruling but would simply be overturned by the 9th (and probably "called out" in the ruling for ignoring clear precedent).

I'm not sure if such a ruling by the 9th would create a Circuit split (opposing interpretation between Circuits) - and one of the SCOTUS' primary roles is resolving Circuit splits. However, even without a Circuit split, the SCOTUS generally hears cases when a state law or constitutional provision is ruled unconstitutional pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

[Tx4obama]

232. What could happen is the 9th affirms & then SCOTUS could decide not to hear the case, right? n/t

[Hosnon]

237. I don't think that would nationalize the 9th's ruling.

I saw on t.v. that a Circuit split would exist if the 9th affirms (with the 8th(?)). Given that split, the invalidation of a state constitutional provision, and the importance of this issue, it seems almost inconceivable that the SCOTUS would decline to hear the case (and only 4 of the 9 Justices need to vote in favor of hearing a case for it to be heard).

[Hekate]

103. Wrong. Each of the Circuit Courts covers a large region, and while interpretations can vary....

... if the argument continues, it is then up to the US Supreme Court to make the final determination.

The 9th Circuit is known for being liberal, and also covers an uncommonly large territory. For those reasons, conservatives would like to see it split up, thus diminishing the impact of its rulings.

Hekate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Splitting_the_9th_Circuit

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is by far the largest Circuit in the U.S. Appellate Court system. Critics say that it is too liberal and often overturned. It is the most liberal of the Circuits in its decisions. Its reversal rate in the U.S. Supreme Court is actually lower than the average circuit -- 9th Circuit cases often appear in the U.S. Supreme Court simply because the 9th Circuit is larger than any other circuit. The 9th Circuit has 28 judges now, compared to 17 in the next largest circuit, has two and a half times the population of the average circuit, and handles roughly 20% of all federal appeals in the United States. The political leanings of the 9th Circuit (which infuriate conservatives and give liberals hope) has turned a basically administrative problem (deciding how many judicial circuits the federal courts need) into an intensely political football, with Democrats supporting a single district whose rulings they view as good, over a wider area, while Republicans hope to carve out new conservative judicial strongholds by breaking up the District.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 205-194 on October 5, 2004 to split the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the largest in the United States, into three parts. Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Marianas and California would remain in the 9th Circuit (based in San Francisco and Los Angeles). One of the new Circuits would be the 12th including Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and and Montana (based in Las Vegas and Phoenix). The other would be the 13th including Washington, Oregon and Alaska (based in Portland and Seattle). The bill would also create 58 new judgeships (7 in the new 9th Circuit designed by its Republican sponsors to make that court less liberal). The bill, S. 878 (with amendments incorporating HR 4247) failed in the U.S. Senate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[laughingliberal]

140. That's 2 things the Senate got right. Defeating that & defeating the deficit commission. Let's hope.

this defeat stays defeated.

[Hosnon]

238. Some splits linger.

Parties may not appeal to the SCOTUS and another case with the same issue might not bubble up to its doorstep for quite a while.

Then again, the Roberts court doesn't seem to mind issuing rulings broader than the issues before it.

[Ter]

265. If no state can ban it, then what happens?

We smile at first, but will it last? Would that trigger mass anti-fed movements?

[ThatsMyBarack]

114. K+R Anyways!

:woohoo: :yourock: :loveya:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Woooo hoooooo!!!!

Congratulations California! A terrible wrong has been made -- well, a little bit better. Now, on to the work that still needs to be done and to the USSC.

[Moonwalk]

It was a TERRIBLE wrong. Make no mistake. I speak as a Californian--

--I will be forever ashamed of my state for Prop. 8. If there is any justice or karma in the universe, then the one good it can do is to be the thing that puts an end to ALL laws banning gay marriage. That, alone, would justify it. And what a wonderful, delicious, magnificent irony that would be.

[24601]

10. Red meat - sure to fire up the mid-term elections even more n/t

[IndianaGreen]

26. Civil liberties are not to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency or

corrupt partisan politics.

[Bette Noir]

40. + about a million.

[mcar]

79. Amen to that.

[24601]

199. How many state legislatures are are needed in order to call for

and convene a Constitutional Convention? Only 2/3 - and no topic is off limits once one is in session. Then 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify any amendment. And Congress has no power to stop either process.

[defendandprotect]

218. +1000% --

[stopbush]

116. Yep. Dems will be energized to get out there and make sure

the wave of change doesn't get derailed by Rs gaining control of anything.

[JackDragna]

11. Goddamit, no!

Don't you know we just opened up the door to all kinds of perversion? What about man-on-dog action? Santorum was right. Next thing you know, people will want to marry household appliances, street signs and all other manner of beings! It's the end of the world! Hide in the bunkers!

[derby378]

14. Don't hide in the bunker - you'll be tempted to copulate with it

What with Prop 8 being smacked upside the head and all that.

[Capitalocracy]

92. What happens in the bunker stays in the bunker.

Why do you think they're always looking for an excuse to go to the bunker?

[polmaven]

124. ah, but ONLY

if the bunker is in an undisclosed location!

[KamaAina]

I've had my eye on this canister vacuum for quite some time now

No one suck quite like the future Mrs. K.! :sarcasm:

[ooglymoogly]

88. To say nothing of gays marying corporations. nt

[SteveG]

165. It's called a Merger.

[90-percent]

137. man-on-dog

Or become followers of L. Ron Hoover's First Church of Appliantology!

-90% Jimmy

with thanks to Frank Zappa's "Joe's Garage, Acts 2 and 3"

[CLANG]

192. I can relate. My toaster's been winking at me. She's hot!

[derby378]

12. MILK!

A tribute to the efforts of Harvey, with all due apologies to SOD:

I woke up, can't wait to eat
Got my cereal, boy was I beat
Opened up my fridge and to my dismay
There was no more Milk, Dan White's gonna pay

I want some Milk
My coffee grows cold
I want some Milk
I should've been told

I wish I had some goddamn Milk
Politics just ain't the same
I wish I had some goddamn Milk
Too bad the policeman never came

I can't go out to the store
I'll just wait till Dan White buys more
I'll just fight 'til Prop 8 is dead
8-hit combo on its fuckin' head

I want some Milk
My coffee grows cold
I want some Milk
I should've been told

I wish I had some goddamn Milk
Politics just ain't the same
I wish I had some goddamn Milk
Too bad the policeman never came

I want some Milk
My coffee grows cold
I want some Milk
I should've been told

[Shining Jack]

87. Thanks...

[DebbieCDC]

13. KO is putting out the word on his Twitter feed

The 9th Cir. better act on this damn quick and uphold the USDJ's ruling

[onehandle]

15. Next: Force California Freepers to Gay Marry.

All according to the 'agenda.'

(insert evil laugh)

[mrs_p]

16. this makes me sooo happy

equality for all!

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. The Mormon Church can Kiss my Ass

Good for California Justice......

[closeupready]

22. Amen.

+1000

[KamaAina]

39. Just yesterday I was harassing two missionaries about Prop H8

Next time I see them, I'll be gloating!! :bounce:

[Bette Noir]

45. Score 1 for the Constitution.

The same one the Wingers all claim to revere, but actually respect about as much as they do the Bible.

[stopbush]

141. I don't respect the Bible. The Constitution is a much greater document

and is worth respect. In fact, it seeks to undo a lot of the ills of the Bible.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YOY]

203. They will fight back. Oh yes. In all their idiotic glory and with all their tithed tax-exempt cash

I know you're not supposed to hate a faith but I find disliking theirs even easier than disliking my former faith.

I could at least find positives in my former faith.

[snake in the grass]

18. Great news!

I hope the Theocrats suck on it. All that money they could have used to feed the poor, thrown away; the fucking losers.

Losers!

[slackmaster]

19. Good. Next stop, US Circuit Court of Appeals.

And then on to the Supremes.

[NewJeffCT]

21. Thank goodness

Any chance the Supreme Court will let this ruling stand?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. Yes they will have to under the 14th Amendment.

They didn't even mention the Full Faith and Credit clause which also applies.

IOW, you get married in one state, move to another state, your marriage is still valid, because each state has to recognize contracts entered into in another state as valid.

Which is why a judge in Dallas granted a gay couple a divorce, who had been married legally in Massachusetts, and moved to Texas. And Greg Abbott, the Texas A.G., had shitfits, because he doesn't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause and he was babbling about annulling the gay marriage once the couple arrived in Texas.

That ain't how it works, boy. :wtf:


:banghead:

[NewJeffCT]

64. The Roberts Court has shown little respect

for things like precedent - as long as somebody once vigorously dissented on a case, it gives them a right to overturn & over-reach.

[pinto]

23. Good quote -

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:


"any rational basis", "the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples"...some of the language in the ruling that opponents will have to challenge at the Ninth Circuit.

[Hawkeye-X]

52. You bet they will bring it up again

And try to beat the justices to death with it. Fortunately the Constitution mandates an equal protection clause which the h8ers are hoping to get away with by ignoring it. Won't happen! Enjoy this win for LGBTIQ. For the first time in a long time, religion loses this battle.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Equality under the law!

LGBT Americans are entitled to the same rights and privileges of citizenship as all other citizens, including the right to marry.

[brooklynite]

25. about Judge Walker...

Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1966 and Stanford Law School in 1970. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher from 1971 to 1972, he practiced in San Francisco at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro from 1972 until his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to the federal district court. Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker

all together now: Damn Liberal Judges!

[alp227]

171. But didn't Big Bush nominate that liberal David Souter

to the disappointment of Bush's Republican base? (Which is why Bush balanced his nomination record by nominating Clarence Thomas)

But wait! The same Wikipedia article says:

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".<4> Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.<5>

Walker is an unorthodox judge who has called for auctioning lead counsel status in securities class actions and for the legalization of drugs.<4>

[Hekate]

27. YES! YES! YES!!!

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

TO THE JUDGE
:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:


I cried and cried when my idiot fellow Californians passed an earlier measure in 2000, Proposition 22, defining marriage as between a man and woman. Young adults I had known since they were kids playing with my kids were shut out by Prop 22.

California has taken a twisty road on this issue. Read here if you want the history, which is too lengthy for me to summarize here. (The link itself provides a summary) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#History

Bottom line for me: Civil rights should NEVER be put up for a vote by the masses. The Bill of Rights itself would not be passed a second time if it were put on the ballot.

Hekate

[xxqqqzme]

65. So true - "...The Bill of Rights itself

would not be passed a second time if it were put on the ballot."

Good thing we had some great LIBERAL founding fathers!

[SoapBox]

28. Homo HATING GOBPer - RushTurd - TeaHaterBagger, heads are exploding!

And with that I add....LOLOLOLOLOL! Neener-Neener!

Kiss my GAY ASS, all you Haters!

[Bette Noir]

29. So, are we going to start issuing marriage licenses now, or wait for the appeal?

It was a critical thing, that AG Jerry Brown let stand the marriages performed when they were briefly legal a few years ago. A friend of mine has subsequently died. Her wife would have been homeless, if their marriage had been annulled, as she wouldn't have been able to pay the taxes on the house they bought together a decade ago. Since spouses can inherit without taxes, she can manage her grief indoors.

I should mention that she was 74 when she was widowed.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. I say fire up the weddings --

and full steam ahead! Unless foes can get a judge to sign some sort of an injunction, there is no reason why weddings cannot commence. :shrug:

[MurrayDelph]

94. and they had been together

for about 30 years.

[Frisbee]

30. Congrats to all my Gay DU friends!

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

207. +1000% --

GLBT community has led a long and hard battle for equality -- always with intelligence

and eloquence --

To all who helped fight for this --

:applause:

[brooklynite]

31. Federal judge in California knocks down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marri...

Source: CNN

Banner:

Read more: cnn.com

[MarinCoUSA]

32. No rational basis for singling out..... YEA!

We are people w/ brains Not mere ignorant beasts


Vaughn Walker rules: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Thank you judge from me- and my son.

[kestrel91316]

33. Hallelujah!

[AspenRose]

34. GOOD.

Fantastic news.

[mulsh]

35. yeah. I hope he doesn't grant a stay pending appeal.

this is certainly a victory for all of us, especially our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

[supernova]

36. Wonderful news!

Congrats to all in CA!!

[county worker]

38. I have never been so happy about a ruling in I don't know how long.

I'm 64 and it's been a long time since I've felt this way. I'm not even gay! But I have always felt that when ever things turn out fairly for someone in a minority it is a good thing for me also.

We are all diminished when hate wins and we are all elevated when it loses!

[Bette Noir]

55. There's a wedding I want to cater.

[Duer 157099]

41. Did the opponents get the temporary ban during appeal that they requsted?

So far I haven't seen anything saying either way, which looks to me like he did not include it in the ruling.

:shrug:

[mrs_p]

49. i don't think so

from the ruling http://prop8trialtracker.com/ :

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. 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 anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[Spazito]

70. Damn, I love this...

"...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."

Beautiful, beautiful words, all of them!

I don't see any intent to issue a stay in the quote above!

Edited to add: Damn, I just heard on CNN the Judge issued the stay.

[me b zola]

42. K&R!

[smoogatz]

43. K&R

Great news.

[Kerrytravelers]

46. One step forward on the path to equality.

[Political Tiger]

48. Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, is NOT happy!

"A federal judge has OVERTURNED Proposition 8, finding it is unconstitutional! I'm asking all Christian divorcees to take to the streets and DEMAND that the gays stop undermining your many marriages! Protect the sanctimony of divorce!" -Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian

[Political_Junkie]

50. Woohoo!

:bounce: :woohoo:

[kevinbgoode]

51. So why can't the stay motion be denied?

After all, is an appeal automatic, or do the defendants have to show some basis for an appeal other than being sore losers?

[Smashcut]

58. They get one appeal as of right.

Judge Walker can deny the stay motion but the H8ers can still petition the 9th Circuit to stay enforcement of the order pending the outcome of the appeal, which they have promised to do.

We shall see.

[d_r]

53. This is great news!

[Kind of Blue]

54. YAY, dammit!

KnR

[gauguin57]

56. Celebrate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR47TZdJg64&feature=related

[DirkGently]

59. Excellent.

Prop 9 and its progeny may be the last form of shameless bigtory in the United States. The arguments are even the same ones used to ban interracial marriage: the Bible, tradition, the supposed harm to children.

No one has the right to dictate, or even concern themselves with, what consenting adults do in the bedroom. It follows equally that same-sex partners cannot be denied the full panoply of rights accorded to heterosexual couples and no, civil unions do not cover all bases, and therefore do not suffice.

This whole issue is a shame on America, and particular shame on the Mormon Church for so aggressively funding the nasty, hateful, ignorant campaign. Of all people, they should understand that living in a free country means that others may live and believe as they wish no matter how uncomfortable or difficult to understand that may be for some others.

People backing these pointless laws will be recorded on the same sad page in history as those screaming their bigoted hatred at black students entering white schools for the first time and men who mocked and threatened women who wanted to work outside the home.
This should not even be a point of discussion, nevermind this ridiculous national culture war.

We must do better. This is a good start.

[abelenkpe]

61. Woo Hoo!

Hopefully this is a sign that sanity has returned. :)

[Twinguard]

62. Congratulations to our gay brothers and sisters

from one of your straight allies.

:)

[Political Tiger]

63. Here is the decision:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

[WheelWalker]

215. I read opinions for a living...but this one's for pure enjoyment.

[Minimus]

66. Wonderful!!

[Tsiyu]

67. More Good News!

Oh Noes!!!!!!

halleluiah!


:kick: and BIG Rec!!!!!

[mikelgb]

68. kick

[katty]

69. Yahoo!!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

71. K&R

Congrats!

[Gormy Cuss]

72. And won by Ted Olson, former Solicitor General under W.

I can't wait to hear what buffoonish arguments are used on the appeal.

[keepCAblue]

76. And by a judge who is a REAGAN appointee. n/t

[jeff47]

96. HW Bush, actually. (nt)

[FBaggins]

106. Doesn't mean that he's conservate any more than Souter

who was also appointed by pappy bush.

No more than the fact that the judge is gay means that everyone expected him to rule this way (in fact, I read somewhere that we were expecting a loss).

[keepCAblue]

156. Originally nominated by Reagan in '87 ...

Wiki: Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".<4> Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.(Walker is one of only 2 openly gay federal judges).

Oh, the irony!

[glitch]

167. Not to mention his infamous role in Bush v. Gore nt

[customerserviceguy]

250. While many here applaud Ted Olson

I suspect that his whole aim was to get a case as quickly as possible before the current composition of the SCOTUS. If there were a second Obama term, the chances that one of the conservative members would need to be replaced would be significantly greater.

I think it's been Olson's idea all along that a San Francisco Federal judge would be the most likely to rule against Prop H8, said judge would also be in the 9th Circuit Court which would be the most likely to uphold that ruling, and that would force the issue into the US Supreme Court the fastest way possible.

A SCOTUS decision saying that the US Constitution does NOT protect equal marriage would take at least a generation to overturn, and I think that's what Ted Olson wants as his legacy.

[Gormy Cuss]

267. Suspicions of Olson's motivation for taking this case abound

and there was a lot of opposition to this court challenge on that basis alone, or on the basis that it would ultimately be overruled by SCOTUS.

Done deal now. We'll all see how it plays out.

[customerserviceguy]

271. It could be a split-the-baby decision

No doubt it will come to the SCOTUS right about the time that the Massachusetts federal case does, and it might be decided that while the Constitution does not require states to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples, the US Gov't might have to recognize them in the states where they are legal. There might be a full faith and credit decision as well, which would require the states that don't allow it to recognize equal marriages performed in places that do.

I have far more hope for the Massachusetts case than I do for the California one, it seems to be based more solidly on existing law, rather than creating a whole new right of same-sex marriage that couldn't have been foreseen any time before just recently.

[DeSwiss]

73. K&R!!!

Woo-hoo!!!

[sonias]

75. Awesome!

:woohoo:


:bounce::bounce::bounce:

[Bluestar]

78. Hooray for my beautiful state

And for all the Mormons who came here to campaign and spend all their money to screw with our state, stay out of California politics! (not directed at free-thinking Mormons who might be here at DU).

My favorite quote of the day from Judge Walker--"moral disapproval is not a reason to withhold the rights of gay Americans".

[dyingnumbers]

80. I personally voted against the ban

I was ironically disappointed when the state passed the ban against same-sex marriages, since I do like being unmarried and I'm not monogamous, but I didn't want the government interfering with other peoples' marriages at all, so that was my problem with it. Still, I wouldn't have voted against other people getting married, even though I wouldn't want a license if the court handed me down one.

[AlbertCat]

81. A cartoon from The New Yorker

Gays and lesbians getting married - haven't they suffered enough?

[Yavin4]

82. A Tremendous Victory for All of Us

Discrimination against some is discrimination against all.

[rasputin1952]

83. Woo Hoo!!!

One more step on the road to Equality. This will be stare decisis, where all judges in lower courts are obligated to adhere to the principle within that jurisdiction.
That in itself puts a lot of mileage on this trip to Equal Rights for everyone.

Most excellent, most excellent indeed...:)

[slay]

84. Yay - finally a step in the right direction

it will be legal - it's just a matter of time now. :bounce:

[EFerrari]

85. K&R

:party:

[Fearless]

90. K&R! Let's keep going... They're not done yet, and we sure as hell can't be either!

:party:




And to the backers of the now defunct proposition 8, I have but one thing to say to you:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[jwirr]

91. Good

[Soylent Brice]

93. K&R

:woohoo:

[Ignis]

95. About time.

:woohoo:

[yeswecanandwedid]

97. Yes, nice! (in my best Borat voice) nt

[Odin2005]

98. YAY!!!!!

[AsahinaKimi]

99. This is great news

[rox63]

100. YAY!!!!

K&R! That about sums it up. :) :) :) :) :)

[Shining Jack]

102. What a great news !

:woohoo:

[Denzil_DC]

104. K&R

Terrific news.

[Spheric]

105. May Justice continue to prevail. /nt

[Kajsa]

107. It is a great day for our state!

This is the best news we have had in a very
long time.

:)

[WillyT]

109. Woo Hoo !!! - K & R !!!

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:

:toast:

:kick:

[suffragette]

110. K&R

:woohoo:

[SeattleGirl]

111. Excellent news!

:bounce: :bounce:

[swimboy]

123. Yay!

:bounce: :grouphug: :bounce:

[wryter2000]

112. K & Freaking R!!!!!!!!!!!

Justice isn't a damned popularity contest.

[orbitalman]

113. See Below

:woohoo: :bounce:

[bertman]

115. Excellent!! thanks for posting this, kpete. Rec. nt

[Dappleganger]

117. Civil rights for ALL!

Just awoke from a long nap to this...great news indeed!

:bounce: :toast:

[bigwillq]

118. K and R

:bounce:

[Auggie]

119. K & R

[TexasObserver]

120. Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses."

I'm glad to see this result, which I have always said was the proper result.

Congratulations to California.

[swimboy]

121. Such a relief!

And cause for celebration!

Yes, there are more challenges ahead but I'm so thankful it didn't end today.

Our civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

[KansDem]

122. Today, we are all Californians!

Life's journey is a long, hard road. Don't let anyone tell you whom you can or can't walk that road with...

edited for dative...

[Aslanspal]

125. "Carrie Prejean's breast implants just exploded"

Not mine...saw the above on the Huffington Post.

Congrats to Cali

nothing on Jim Garlows Facebook page...nothing

[Tx4obama]

126. When is Judge Walker expected to rule on the 'stay' filed by the proponents? n/t

[Spazito]

153. He issued a 2 day stay, will hear arguments on Friday ....

I am glad he is only giving the H8ers 2 days re stay!

Edited to add missing word.

[Tx4obama]

174. Thank you for the info. n/t

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gaspee]

161. Was waiting for one of you

To show up, KURO man - nice. Real nice. I have one thing to say to you - go back under the rock you slithered out from under.

[Iggo]

128. Phew!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2dJQxEtZAVo/ShqqtC2KjAI/AAAAAAAAAsg/0kYkCQLesuY/s400/Rainbow+Bear+Flag.jpg

[myrna minx]

129. YAY!

:woohoo:

[Overseas]

131. K&R! Glad to hear it. //nt

[SemperEadem]

132. Hooray!!

The constitution stands for everyone.

[dhill926]

133. Fabulous! K&R for all my gay friends.....

[cheneyschernobyl]

135. Now I'm curious to check out FR;

just to see if their heads are spinning around! Maybe frothing at the mouth to?

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

138. OMG! I have tears rolling down my face! You're right! That is what history sounds like. nt

[Ikonoklast]

142. I hope the opponents spend billions on appeal.

And bankrupt theselves in a losing effort.

[tbyg52]

143. Hooray!

:patriot:

[pmorlan1]

145. Great News!

Now if Boies and Olsen can convince Justice Kennedy then I will really cheer!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

146. You can imagine the ruckus this is making. The eye of the storm ain't comfy.

[ShadowLiberal]

147. Awesome, today was a victory for equality!

[postulater]

148. FREEEEEEEDOMMMM!!!

Congratulations to all who have been denied.

[Jack Rabbit]

149. Musical interlude

It is a time of joy and thanksgiving.

Please click here.

To those who believe that it may be inappropriate to choose this particular ensemble for this song of joy and thanks: Deal with it. They still do sort of thing better than any similar choir. We will not be bigots here.

[ccharles000]

151. k/r

[raouldukelives]

152. K&R

[unapatriciated]

154. Today is a good day to celebrate love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw

[katandmoon]

155. K&R

[keepCAblue]

157. One small step for gays and lesbians. One giant leap for the human race.

:bounce:

[Moonwalk]

185. Exactly! Bravo!

:applause: :headbang: :fistbump:

[Eyerish]

158. Wonderful News!!! K&R

Sometimes my home state makes my proud. This is one of those times.
:bounce: :applause:

[Politicub]

159. So ecstatic here that I can hardly type!!!

:bounce:

[grantcart]

160. Great news

[HCE SuiGeneris]

162. A win for the people. Hell yes!

Damn good news.

[Veruca Salt]

164. YES!

:party: :toast: :grouphug: :patriot:

[glitch]

166. Bam! All that money, time and effort right down a rathole, assholes!

Plus you outed your bigoted true selves to the rest of the world.

Judge Vaughn Walker and Ted Olson (some redemption for Ted here) and David Boies:
:applause:

[SILVER__FOX52]

168. Ya, some sanity.

[earth mom]

169. Yippee! Take that you whack job fundies!

:woohoo:

[girl gone mad]

170. k & r

:bounce:

[Vehl]

172. This is great news!!!

Bravo!

[crikkett]

175. Saw it on the evening news. Whippeedoo!!

:bounce:


:party:

[CLANG]

176. This is a great reason to celebrate!

:toast: :beer: :fistbump: :headbang: :patriot:

[JerseygirlCT]

177. Excellent news, and the only correct ruling

Now on to the next fight - because the bigots are not going to give up easily.

[d_b]

178. Awesome.

Just Awesome.

[LawnKorn]

179. K&R

[Roci]

180. A glimmer of hope

Maybe there is some scant hope that Americans just might start living up to the American Ideal sometime within this new century. We'll see, but I am momentarily encouraged.
Now the trick becomes stopping the Party of No and the orchestra of scorched cats that passes for their noise machine from turning this over like they have so many other things while Democrats are busy looking for their courage.”

[CaliforniaPeggy]

183. Welcome to DU, Roci!

It is a great day!

:hi:

:toast:

[WheelWalker]

214. Welcome to the neighborhood !

[Roci]

241. While we can be happy...

about this, and I don't usually take the role of party pooper, there's an old Japanese saying: "In victory, tighten your helmet straps."
What this means plain and simple is that now isn't the time for all out partying that'll leave everyone "Hung over" tomorrow. Because while we're backslapping and grinning, the people who want us behind barbed wire and worse are still out there, and now they are wounded, making the "animal" we face down a lot more dangerous. So draw a deep breath, and share a smile, but get ready for the next wave, because I assure you, they'll be back, bright and early tomorrow morning, counting on the fact that we'll have our backs turned and our guard down. So to borrow an old phrase "Smoke if you got um'" but make sure the fires are high, and the guard posts set, because it's just like our opposition to strike from the night as black as their own hearts, while their opponents have their backs turned.

[Jefferson23]

181. 5 Stars for Judge Walker, great news!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:toast: :fistbump: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause:














:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[donco6]

182. Best news in a long, long time. n/t

[patrice]

184. Thank Goodness! Now if we can just keep Kansas from committing the same crime!

[msanthrope]

186. It's a bulletproof motherfucker of a decision.

I just read the whole thing. The conservatives on the 9th, and SCOTUS, will have to contort themselves into pretzels in order to overturn it.....

I've got tears in my eyes.


Congratulations, Ted Olson and David Boies. (I think Hell just froze over....)

[DesertFlower]

188. great news. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

189. K&R A good day for freedom! n/t

[CLANG]

190. Anyone see any bigot flying brain matter lately?

:evilgrin:

[BootinUp]

191. K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

193. I hope when this gets to the supreme court the homophobes are knocked flat on their asses.

[cate94]

194. Wow!

All the straight support here has given me tears. Truly, it is as moving as the court decision.

Maybe I will finally get to legally marry the love of my life! Right now we only spend a few weeks a year in CA, but we plan on retiring there. It would be awesome to marry somewhere it would really count.

(BTW, we have been together 17 years and said our vows 16 years ago, so we are already married in our eyes. It would be nice to be legal.) :)

[beac]

210. I hope soon you will be able to be married in any and all of our 50 states.

Your relationship has lasted longer than most of Newt Gingrich's marriages and proves that it's not whom you love but how.

[cate94]

242. Thanks! I hope so too.!

[Raster]

195. Three words: FUCK the mormons.

[CLANG]

196. A respectful reply to prop 8 proponents

[mnhtnbb]

226. Bwahaaa!!

[Joanne98]

197. YAY

[RufusTFirefly]

198. See what happens when you elect a President who wasn't even born in this country!

Further proof of Barack Hussein Obama's plot to transform us into godless European socialists.

Do you see what happens Larry? Do you see what happens?!!

http://thumbnails.hulu.com/6/885/14665_512x288_manicured__cVYJOH824kCxzHaSR+I1OQ.jpg





Oh yeah. :sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

201. Ted Olsen... will wonders never cease

As you may recall, he was Bush's lawyer in Bush v. Gore.

Anything for a buck, I guess.....

[mnhtnbb]

227. No, he's still doing penance for that. Remember his wife died in 9/11.

[Recursion]

244. Some conservatives are pro-LGBT

Mostly the fiscal/libertarian types: Olsen, Buckley (when he was still around), Sullivan, Hitchens, etc.

[lonestarnot]

202. K & R!

[defendandprotect]

204. Love that this won -- and the REASONING given . . .

might it shame Obama into admitting that organized patriarchal religious

beliefs are not fact -- and, sadly, too often based on male-supremacist prejudice.

Next up is actually overturning the war on women -- !!

[lakers4life24]

209. Good. Those Extreme Right Wing Bigots Can Frakk It.

A good win folks a very good win.

Now how about getting rid of SB1070 and stick it to those Extreme Racists and Bigots RepubliKKKlans and Tea Baggers.

[beac]

211. Wonderful, wonderful news. I've been smiling all evening since I heard it.

:applause:

[Kurovski]

212. K&R.

:bounce:

[WheelWalker]

213. +1 x 10 to the 99th ! That being said, I have only three words.... ebb & flow.

The Supremes are not final because they are infallible... they are infallible because they are final.

[donheld]

216. Whoooohooooo

:woohoo::applause::woohoo::applause::woohoo::applause::woohoo::applause::woohoo::applause::woohoo:

[David Zephyr]

217. This is the case, these are the lawyers and this is the time. K&R.

Excellent, but predictable news.

[Lifelong Protester]

219. A step closer to "liberty and justice for all"

Glad to see this. I had hopes for you California! You can't let Iowa out-liberal you!!!

[Divine Discontent]

234. +1!

[Norrin Radd]

221. kr

[MellowDem]

222. Great news...but I'm nervous the SC will overturn...

which will really put us back. But, you never know, maybe one of the conservatives will have a change of heart. They think the SC will take it up in 2012 though, which also means presidential campaign issues, which I'm also nervous about. But, only time will tell. Until then, we can still work to get states to pass legalization by vote.

[HEyHEY]

223. Suck on that, Kansas!

[mnhtnbb]

224. Damn. Does that make me smile!

:applause: :bounce:

[flyarm]

228. What a wonderful day! And an incredibly intelligent Judge!

To all my Gay friends I congradulate you and wish you nothing but love! Unconditional love and eternal happiness!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Divine Discontent]

229. Thank you Judge Walker, EQUALITY should not be put up for majority vote!

And thank you from the bottom of my heart, to all the "Straight But Not Narrow" supporters of equality here on DU!

:hug:

[Divine Discontent]

233. if ya wanna support equality on a big newspaper online poll -----

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_federal_judge_vaughn_walker_overturns_californias_prop_8_in_win_for_samesex_marr.html



Currently at 85 for, 11 against, and 5 "I don't know" - which totals 101. ha

[Kali]

230. k, r and

:toast: one for justice

[ggallegos13]

240. Well, it's about time!

It's about time someone from CA stopped the madness! This is not only a victory for same-sex couples, but we are one step closer to full acceptance of same sex marriages in the United States of America. Progressives all across the nation should step up and say, "If California can do it, so can we." I like what Cenk Uygur said today about same sex marriages across all of the states is inevitable. The question is, when will it happen? We are coming dangerously close to November elections, where we are mostly likely going to get a whole lot more conservatives in the house, (and a lot more Republican filibusters.) Progressives in the House and the Senate need to make a big move in the next two months and get what the American people want done.

But still, in the past week, California has made history!

[Recursion]

243. Oh no! I'm turning gay!

Just like Glenn Beck warned us!!!

[Jenny_92808]

246. gop'rs h8ful holier than thou delusional thinking...

make me sick.

"...GOP wants gay couples married in other states to be pursued through Texas as dangerous criminals..."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/

[democrank]

248. Enthusiastic K & R

[Tripmann]

249. Brilliant news!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

251. Shoutout to Antonin Scalia

For remarks he made in Lawrence v. Texas.

An unlikely conspirator in Prop 8′s murder

by Colby Cosh on Thursday, August 5, 2010 5:21am

....
The punchline to all this is that Justice Scalia is so forthright, confident, and frankly plain ornery in his views that he inadvertently supplied Judge Walker with a grace note for his magnum opus. Back in 2003, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh pointed out that the then-fresh Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision annulling that state’s sodomy law featured a little sideshow he thought relevant to the future of the gay-marriage struggle.

In today’s Lawrence decision, Justice O’Connor refuses a general right to sexual autonomy, but concludes that banning only homosexual sodomy violates the Equal Protection Clause—there’s just no rational basis for such discrimination besides “a…desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” she says. What about gay marriage, one might ask her? She anticipates this, by suggesting that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a “legitimate state interest.” “Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations—the asserted state interest in this case—other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.”

Justice Scalia derides this—” leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” because “‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” . But wait: Isn’t that the usual argument of those who criticize the heterosexual-only marriage rule?

In his tirade against “a Court…that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda”, Scalia gave the game away. Allergic to O’Connor’s cop-out, he argued that there was no need for hetero-only marriage to stand on any basis but “moral disapproval”—and took the extra step, regarded as dangerous by many in his camp, of denying that it could possibly have any other basis. It was an admission, a rather gay-friendly admission really, that any search for objective harms or administrative excuses with which to bash same-sex marriage would be nonsensical and futile.

And lo and behold, in the year of our Lord 2010, the Volokh prophecy has come to pass; Scalia’s grenade has landed right smack in paragraph 21 of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, 604-05 (2003) (Scalia, J, dissenting): “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

[GliderGuider]

257. Hoist with his own petard! Sweet!!!

:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:
:party: :toast: :bounce: :fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :rofl:

[sofa king]

274. What's even more amazing is a dissenting opinion is finally good for something.

Edit: And congratulations to all of you, my friends, real and virtual!

[Divine Discontent]

278. thanks for that!

yep.


there's lots of people who don't choose to have kids upon being married, or who were sterilized by the state for whatever reason (mental or other issues), or naturally weren't able to have babies, or no longer are able to have babies but still marry (typically 50+ year old women). So should they all be barred from marriage because they cannot have children? The bigots are SCREWED if their argument against Gays is that God has marriage only for procreation, as I've heard many of my Christian "brothers and sisters" say over the years. They're wrong. Flat wrong!

[AllyCat]

253. This is some fantastic news!!!

Wow...can't wait to have time to read all of this. Equality scores a big one!

[feslen]

258. Excellent!

[felix_numinous]

259. Victory for Love

and victory over religious nuts--what could be better!!

:toast: :party:

[Blue_Tires]

261. proud kick

[SoapBox]

264. See this for dose of major crazy...

Wow...this woman is nuts!

Get your Tin-Foil Hat on:

"Is Maggie Gallagher losing it? Says Prop 8 decision is sign of “Soviet-style” government takeover (with “Red Dawn” update!)"

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/04/is-maggie-gallagher-losing-it-says-prop-8-decision-is-sign-of-soviet-style-government-takeover/