In his first response to the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco said the case raises numerous issues that may need to be considered at a trial, including the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians and the intent and effects of the state constitutional amendment.

Why do I get the feeling the Lovey case is going to play a big part in the decision (rightfully so)?

And this guy earns the "clueless" award:

"We think this is an issue of law" that does not depend on disputed evidence, Raum said. For example, he said, questions of past persecution of gays and lesbians are irrelevant because Prop. 8 allows them to marry, as long as they wed someone of the opposite sex.

"There is no indication that the marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation," Raum said. "Our position is that from a federal constitutional perspective, there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage."

And this isn't going to help the bigots case:

He said opponents of same-sex marriage may also need to present evidence to justify their arguments that children are best raised by a married mother and father, and that allowing gays and lesbians to wed "destabilizes opposite-sex marriage."

Case studies have shown children are just as socially adjusted from gay households as they are from straight households.

Why do I get the feeling the Lovey case 

Loving, ITYM.  Best.  Case.  Name.  Evah!  

Because it's directly applicable.  It blows up that "they can marry too" clown Raum's statement.

.

Case studies have shown children are just as socially adjusted from gay households as they are from straight households.

And better than average if it's a lesbian household.

Because it's directly applicable.

Especially since the judge has specifically said he's going to look into the discrimination aspect of the suit.  Case law on discrimination will get top billing in his deliberations.

I can't wait to hear the questions he'll ask the pro-H8 lawyers.

Doesn't the US Constitution trump the California Constitution in the area of human rights? 

It's never been an uncertainty for me whether gays have been treated unfairly in America.  When will it end?

Doesn't the US Constitution trump the California Constitution in the area of human rights? 

Ultimately, yes.  But SCOTUS has to say so.    They will...eventually.

The judge in this case is being *VERY* careful.  The way he's conducting the trial--and the fact that there *WILL BE* a trial is important in itself--it could only be overturned by showing he made a mistake of fact. 

Someone at the website below (yeah, it's Dailykos, bite me) noted that this could turn out to be this generation's "Scopes Trial."  I hope not--Scopes lost...

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

it could only be overturned by showing he made a mistake

You're forgetting about the conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS.

It wouldn't be the first time they agreed to hear a case based upon the verdict and not the proceedings.

"Citing the plaintiffs' argument that Prop. 8 was motivated by antagonism toward homosexuals, Walker also said he may want to take a look at campaign ads and ballot arguments to establish voters' intent."

Perhaps a "Friend of the Court" brief ( I think that is what they call it?) with some of the posts from this site about the issue ? Any one at all will do ...

Or, they could just cite the Fort Worth case:

http://www.star-telegram.co...

Stonewall all over again. 

It wouldn't be the first time they agreed to hear a case based upon the verdict and not the proceedings.

Case in point:  the recent Ricci decision.

Wow.  So if Prop 8 is overturned, is an appeal by the Prop 8 supporters expected right away?  Seems to me they'd have to do a lot of wriggling to find a reason for appeal, if this judge is being so very careful.

Case in point:  the recent Ricci decision.

Exactly the case I was thinking of.

The only thing one can say for certain on this issue is that it will be bitterly fought on both sides for years to come. At least there won't be a shortage of flamewars.

My point of view is being molded.

The single best predictor of whether a person opposes same-sex marriage is how old they are.  The younger generation--someday--will wonder why it took so long to legalize freedom for everyone.  I hope they forgive California voters for the delay.

After having a invigorating conversation with a conservative friend of mine, in which this came up.

I made the argument for gay marriage that if you take the religous aspect out of the equation, what is the difference?  I simply feel that if gay marriage on a day to day basis will not change my life one bit, nor many other peoples.  It's not for me, I prefer my nice slice of suburban hetro life, but that is the whole point.  Without the religous arguement, there isn't one.  It is clearly a breach of peoples rights, and forceing a religous agenda on the whole country.  A clear violation of the seperation of church and state. 

Hopefully this countrie's courts will see fit to uphold the constituion, even if it doesn't uphold the will of the people.  That is the beauty of this country.  

Without the religous arguement, there isn't one.

That's the beauty of the judge's order.  He's not going to listen to religious arguments.  Just factual ones.  In a lot of ways, he's going to give us the debate we *SHOULD* have had during the campaign.

Hence the Scopes analogy.

Considering the fact that 81 percent of the child sex abuse cases that rocked the Catholic Church were perpetrated by homosexual priests, it only stands to reason that one should have second thoughts about adopting children to gay households. Sure, there may be what liberals consider to be "model" gay households, but they're certainly the exception rather than the norm, to hear one expert tell it: http://www.ewtn.com/library...

In fact, it could get downright ugly: http://soilcatholics.blogsp...

And before anyone points out that the article in the first link dates to 2004, I can certainly say in all honesty that I recently read a report somewhere that confirms what the expert says about children being more likely to suffer problems from being put up with gay couples rather than a traditional one. In fact, there was another report about children who were adopted by gay couples reporting the hell they went through, and yet another one saying that such children were more likely of coming down with the homosexuality disorder themselves.

But if you folks want to do an end run around the voters who wisely restricted marriage to one man and one woman, then you may want to have a certain "Catholic" priest bless your efforts: http://www.calcatholic.com/...

That is a priest Dirtyshirt could certainly admire, but he knows my Knights of Columbus brothers are going to be royally ticked off ...

I think we can safely count your example as a biased sample set Pax and therefore not valid for statistical reasoning.

Considering the fact that 81 percent of the child sex abuse cases that rocked the Catholic Church were perpetrated by homosexual priests,

Betcha they weren't.   But 100 percent of them were Catholic clergy.  I find *THAT* significant.

Between that and this report, I think Catholics should be excluded from the ranks of adoptive parents:

http://www.childabusecommis...

But if you folks want to do an end run around the voters

It's called "following the Constitution."  You should look it up.  Once again, the judge is going to give us the prop 8 campaign that *SHOULD* have been run--by both sides--and he's going to vote.

Yeah, lets not forget that those "homosexual men" were men of "god".  Let's not clump the sickness of some people and pervert the argument.  Those men were pedophiles.  Comparing all gay men to pedophiles is simply lame.  If the clergy had molested little girls would it have been any differnt?  No. 

This will end up in the Supreme Court where it should be.  Jim, Bob and Mary, Jane will lose.

I'm more of a Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice type, myself.  :)

Eventually it will reach SCOTUS.  And eventually same-sex marriage will be the law of the entire country, just as interracial marriage became legalized in the '60's.  Praise the Spaghetti Monster, and may His noodly appendages give Obama a couple more seats on that august body to fill.

The plural of "spouse" is spice, right?  :)

Depends on the spouse.  Sometimes it's plural is louse.

You just took an old and famous saying, "variety is the spice of life," and made a redundancy out of it.

Great work, RF.  ;)

I work in the Department of Redundancy Department (Tautology Division.)

LOL random!!!  You are too clever.

I steal only from the best. :)

Hmm...Monty Python?

Well, well, well ... the gay agenda certainly seems to exist, what the the media covering up for it? http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Here's a study on Proposition 8.  Every age group under 65 showed an increase in support for gay marriage.

http://www.thetaskforce.org...

Pax, can you tell me what "the gay agenda" means?  I mean, these same news organizations that didn't mention that the dad was gay also failed to mention the fact that all of those Catholic priests molesting boys were gay.  Were they covering for the gay Catholic agenda?

I was wondering what would make this guy think of posting yet another post about this subject.

Then I noticed only two posts before this one is one entitled  "Free food at Wienerschnitzel"

Nuff said...

Clearly this subject makes your head explode, dril.

You might want to put plastic over your furniture now.  That way when Prop 8 is overturned, you'll have an easier time cleaning up.

I really hope what you mean is that older people can see that this is a civil rights issue.  

No, what I mean is that the younger a voter is, the less the idea of same-sex marriage bothers them.  That's why Prop h8 was pushed through now...a couple more years of voter attrition and the voting population wouldn't have passed it.

I am so a californian blog junky... My ex says I have a problem.  You should hear him when I say I was on the blogs.  It's hilarious really.

I think it's funny that the argument mainly given for this issue is child molesters.  cause you bring the kids in and people get angry.  I think that's why the propaganda that got the kids involved was GENIUS!  they knew their market and they exploited them like a date on prom night.  And just because they're gay doesn't make them a child molester.  I hate that stereotype.  And don't particularily understand where it came from. But... I think there is just a likelyhood of a homosexual couple molesting children as a heterosexual couple.  Because, i think, statistically the majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. Anyway... Whatever happens happens.  I can't let myself get angry about all of this anymore. 

I think it's funny that the argument mainly given for this issue is child molesters.

Well, those folks tend to argue what they know. 

.

statistically the majority of child molesters are heterosexual men

The "typical" child molester is in a sexual relationship with the victim's mother.

Or is a Roman Catholic priest.