# Prop-8 Arguments Today - What will happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386 "2009-03-05T14:50:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/121 "2010-08-04T22:33:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Waiting to see if the religious right can still complain of bleeding-heart commie-liberal-activist judges appointed by Clinton. > > The freepers are currently calling him a liberal and a homosexual. > > [Federal judge overturns gay marriage ban in Calif.](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564674/posts) And the 2010 Tianenmen Square Tank Guy Award for [del]futility[/del] perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds goes to this guy: > [@](#): > > **To: Marathoner** > > > [@](#): > > > > I am so f-ing mad!! What’s the f-ing point in voting anymore, when some black robed tyrant can overturn an election in one fell swoop. > > We live in a Republic, not a democracy. > > That means that the rule of law trumps mob rule. > > And the rule of law is that you cannot deny people rights even if everyone but the one person impacted voted that way. > > You don’t have to like it, but it protects you too. > > posted on Wed Aug 04 2010 17:33:50 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by **Filo** (Darwin was right!) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/122 "2010-08-04T22:36:20Z")
Interestingly, it appears that the Freepers are right about one thing: Judge Vaughn Walker _is_ gay. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/123 "2010-08-04T22:57:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Interestingly, it appears that the Freepers are right about one thing: Judge Vaughn Walker _is_ gay. At this point, I’m convinced that everyone who has extreme homophobic sentiments are simply trying to cover up their own personal homosexual tendencies. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/124 "2010-08-04T23:11:13Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > Interestingly, it appears that the Freepers are right about one thing: Judge Vaughn Walker _is_ gay. > > At this point, I’m convinced that everyone who has extreme homophobic sentiments are simply trying to cover up their own personal homosexual tendencies. Um, who do you think you’re talking about? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/125 "2010-08-04T23:26:54Z")
The Freepers? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/126 "2010-08-04T23:29:05Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The Freepers? Ah, well, yes. Though one shouldn’t underestimate the ability for religion to turn people into placid idealogues, who then become un-placid due to the magic of the internet. So while I strongly suspect that there’s a strong correlation between anti-gay railing and gayness in _real life_, I suspect that some of the loud freepers are probably just loud because everything’s louder in an internet echo chamber. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/127 "2010-08-05T00:46:42Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@alphaboi867](#): > > > > And he invalidated on rational basis scruntiny, the lowest level of scrutiny possible. 🙂 > > ugh. that may not be the best thing. > > is a finding of grounds for an EP violation (be it SS, RR, etc.) reviewed de novo or the lesser standard? anyone? Bueller? > > because if it’s de novo, and if the COA and the SupCt keep rolling with rational basis review (which they may not) it’s not clear that that decision would stand. > > (haven’t read the opinion - this is a knee-jerk reaction) I haven’t read the opinion yet (it _is_ 138 pages long, but apparently the findings of fact were rather extensive. [Best article I’ve found so far](http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/its-in.html): > [@](#): > > 1. This case is about civil marriage. Religious belief has no place here. > > … > > 1. Marriage is a state of commitment, not a construct in which to have children. > > … > > 1. Same-sex couples are just like opposite-sex couples. > > … > > 1. Domestic partnerships insufficiently recognize those relationships… As I understand it, those findings would not be reviewed _de novo_. ---
**Author:** ![UncleNito](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/7cd45c/32.png) [@UncleNito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleNito)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/128 "2010-08-05T00:56:23Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@alphaboi867](#): > > > > And he invalidated on rational basis scruntiny, the lowest level of scrutiny possible. 🙂 > > ugh. that may not be the best thing. > > is a finding of grounds for an EP violation (be it SS, RR, etc.) reviewed de novo or the lesser standard? anyone? Bueller? > > because if it’s de novo, and if the COA and the SupCt keep rolling with rational basis review (which they may not) it’s not clear that that decision would stand. > > (haven’t read the opinion - this is a knee-jerk reaction) Determining the standard of review (and for that matter, applying that standard to a given set of facts) is a question of law, which is always subject to de novo review, no matter what level of scrutiny the court applied. The opinion has very lengthy findings of fact, which theoretically get more deference, but this case is more about the law than the facts. So says this real lawyer who got a B- in Con Law I and only skimmed the opinion 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/129 "2010-08-05T01:18:14Z")
Hooray! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/130 "2010-08-05T01:53:35Z")
Prop 8 overturned and Lindsay Lohan released BOTH in the same week. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/131 "2010-08-05T01:55:33Z")
I liked this: > [@](#): > > An > initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. > The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified > scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the > voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must > find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when > those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. > Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will > the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, > no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The > evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 > finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is > beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their > representatives. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/132 "2010-08-05T02:25:56Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Prop 8 overturned and Lindsay Lohan released BOTH in the same week. 🙂 Lindsay is loose again? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/133 "2010-08-05T02:41:41Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > > [@Markxxx](#): > > > > Prop 8 overturned and Lindsay Lohan released BOTH in the same week. 🙂 > > Lindsay is loose again? I can’t see why, she’s been confined exclusively with women for weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/134 "2010-08-05T02:44:54Z")
I has a question. If the judge doesn’t stay the verdict pending appeal, does this mean that gay marriage is now legal in the entire jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/135 "2010-08-05T02:45:31Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > > [@Markxxx](#): > > > > Prop 8 overturned and Lindsay Lohan released BOTH in the same week. 🙂 > > Lindsay is loose again? Uh, hasn’t she always been? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/136 "2010-08-05T03:01:27Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I has a question. > > If the judge doesn’t stay the verdict pending appeal, does this mean that gay marriage is now legal in the entire jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit? No. Only a decision of the appeals court applies to the entire circuit jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/137 "2010-08-05T03:38:12Z")
> [@UncleNito](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > ugh. that may not be the best thing. > > > > is a finding of grounds for an EP violation (be it SS, RR, etc.) reviewed de novo or the lesser standard? anyone? Bueller? > > > > because if it’s de novo, and if the COA and the SupCt keep rolling with rational basis review (which they may not) it’s not clear that that decision would stand. > > > > (haven’t read the opinion - this is a knee-jerk reaction) > > Determining the standard of review (and for that matter, applying that standard to a given set of facts) is a question of law, which is always subject to de novo review, no matter what level of scrutiny the court applied. > > The opinion has very lengthy findings of fact, which theoretically get more deference, but this case is more about the law than the facts. > > So says this real lawyer who got a B- in Con Law I and only skimmed the opinion 🙂 I love what he had to stay about the standard of review. He decided under rational basis, but allowed that strict scrutiny would be appropriate for all sexual orientation cases. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/138 "2010-08-05T03:38:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Waiting to see if the religious right can still complain of bleeding-heart commie-liberal-activist judges appointed by Clinton. > > The freepers are currently calling him a liberal and a homosexual. > > [Federal judge overturns gay marriage ban in Calif.](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564674/posts) > > Quote: > Originally Posted by freeper\_retard > Evil had truly descended upon our country. As much as I hoped America might hang on until 2012, things like this prove the cancer is terminal. I used the dread the thoughts of another CW, but now it looks like our only salvation. > > > [@freeper\_retard02](#): > > > > This liberal activist scum Vaughn Walker should be removed from office since he didn’t recuse himself from the case. Thank God his negligence will 100% result in a reversal. These people are fucking retarded. If you want to start a Civil War, go ahead. What’s stopping you? If you’re such badasses, quit talking and just do it. Oh that’s right you don’t have the balls to do anything besides act like giant poseurs. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/139 "2010-08-05T03:46:27Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > [@Gorsnak](#): > > > > I has a question. > > > > If the judge doesn’t stay the verdict pending appeal, does this mean that gay marriage is now legal in the entire jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit? > > No. Only a decision of the appeals court applies to the entire circuit jurisdiction. So if this is upheld on appeal (& not stayed pending SCOTUS review) same-sex marriage suddenly becomes legal in Alaksa, Arizona, Hawai’i, _Idaho_, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Guam as well in California? 🙂 Does that mean that the Attorneys-General of those stand could be granted intervenor status at the appeal? 😕 Wouldn’t that mean that _every_ single state/territory AG in the country could intervene at the Supreme Court? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386/140 "2010-08-05T05:02:06Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > > No. Only a decision of the appeals court applies to the entire circuit jurisdiction. > > So if this is upheld on appeal (& not stayed pending SCOTUS review) same-sex marriage suddenly becomes legal in Alaksa, Arizona, Hawai’i, _Idaho_, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Guam as well in California? 🙂 Does that mean that the Attorneys-General of those stand could be granted intervenor status at the appeal? 😕 Wouldn’t that mean that _every_ single state/territory AG in the country could intervene at the Supreme Court? :eek: It’s not necessarily true that, were Judge Walker’s decision upheld at the 9th Circuit that it would invalidate any and all gay marriage bans within the 9th Circuit. Judge Walker’s decision is VERY narrow. He does not make an attempt to place sexual orientation within the protection of either strict or mid-level scrutiny (protected classifications). He ruled on the basis of the evidence in the trial before him about the specifics of Proposition 8. Since the decision doesn’t attempt to say that any and all efforts at banning marriage between members of the same gender is unconstitutional, the decision can’t be easily used to attack other enacted bans, especially any such bans legislatively enacted. Of course, that doesn’t mean the 9th might not change the basis of the ruling in the process, but I’m doubting they would. When you are attempting to insert a wedge, you want the thin end as narrow as you can possibly make it, intending to shove it in deeper later. Knocking the whole damn door down in one blow rarely works. :eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-arguments-today-what-will-happen/488386.md?page=8)