Posted on 07/20/2010 7:46:38 AM PDT by SmithL
Advocates of same-sex marriage rights were, to put it mildly, stunned when California voters passed Proposition 8 nearly two years ago, placing a ban on such marriages in the state constitution.
Californians' acceptance of same-sex unions had been steadily growing, the state Supreme Court had overturned a statutory ban on gay marriage, and the 2008 presidential election had a big turnout of young and nonwhite voters presumed to support "marriage equality," as advocates call it.
It later became apparent from exit polling, however, that Proposition 8 enjoyed strong support among black and Latino voters, which may have been decisive.
Gay marriage advocates suffered another setback when the state Supreme Court upheld the measure's validity. They divided over whether to pursue a Proposition 8 repeal in 2010, ultimately decided it would be an unwise tactical move, opted for a federal court challenge, and are now awaiting Judge Vaughn Walker's decision.
In a manner of speaking, however, Joseph Tauro, a federal judge in Boston, beat Walker to the punch when he declared that the federal "Defense of Marriage Act," which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional.
Although Tauro's ruling was a victory for the gay rights movement, its legal basis could, ironically, undercut the lawsuit against Proposition 8. Tauro declared that Massachusetts had the authority, as a matter of states' rights, to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriage, and the federal law "offends" those rights.
Logically, if Tauro is correct and the feds cannot overrule Massachusetts same-sex marriage laws as a states' rights matter, neither could they overturn California's anti-gay marriage law, Proposition 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Stuned in the beeber!
There is no legal logic in the homosexual marriage court cases, that’s the whole point. Liberal judges who have ruled for homosexual marriage are making this up as they go along.
They will interpret the laws in such a way that they conclude that homosexual marriage must be allowed.
A federal court has already ruled it is a state right and not constitutional for the feds to ban or accept it. Therefore, they will not be able to overturn CA’s prop 8, or force it on us at the federal level, it is a state rights issue, as it should be.
The ruling of federal judge Joseph Tauro, is another judicial violation of separation of powers. Article 1, Section 1 grants all federal legislative power to Congress. The court has no power to change Congress’ definition of marriage for the purpose of interpreting federal law.
I disagree with you on the point that the feds have the right to over ride states. This would make the recent 2nd amendment ruling illegal and it isn't. I do not want the feds to have the power to say homo marriage is legal, it works both ways you know. If they can ban it they can unban it. States have the right to determine this and that is the way it should be. BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the feds the right to determine who can be married and who can't therefore the 10th amendment comes into play.
Chill.
Homo marriage is and has been legal in any state that votes for it. DOMA did not override the state’s power to legalize it.
I know that and I said that. You said something entirely different. You said that the constitution gives the feds the right to over ride the states and it does not. Quit trying to attribute something to me I didn’t say. As for chilling I don’t need to chill you need to use your brain when reading other people’s comments.
Maybe.
He won’t toss it out. He was going to but now he has put it on hold, that is because this ruling by the feds makes it impossible for him to throw it out, even if he wants to. He put his ruling on hold as soon as the fed ruling came down.
If he was to go in favor of the state (really the people) you and I both know from experience the sodomites will call him a traitor and subject him to harassment and worse.
(Yes, I know you cannot do that to a federal judge. But, again, we both know the law has never stopped these lunatics before.)
He can't toss on grounds of state unconstitutionality since it is a state amendment, he can't toss it on fed unconstitutionality because the feds have ruled that it is constitutional for the states to ban, or allow, homo marriage. He has no grounds for tossing it. Period.
Don't tell me what he will not do. Just pray he won't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.