Tyrror (![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} tehpainfultruth) wrote,@ 2010-08-05 03:55:00 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tonights entry brought to you by the number 8, the letter 'C', and my T-shirt...
I'm not entirely sure how much more gay tonight can get, however I'm determined to make it that much more so. I've got the soundtrack from Glee on in the background, I'm wearing my "Marriage is so gay" t-shirt, and I'm about to write an article about one of, what is very likely, the most prominent events of the modern age regarding civil rights and gay marriage.
For those of you who live under a rock, yesterday (Wednesday, August 4th) Judge Vaughn Walker of the California court system made the declaration that Proposition 8, the ban placed on gay marriage in 2008, was "unconstitutional"! Needless to say, today is a day for great rejoicing at such a decision, however that doesn't mean we can let our guard down...but first the good news.
What struck me, however, was not the ruling (that was just common sense to me) but the manner in which Judge Walker delivered it. While reading through snippets of his ruling I was amazed at the amount of conviction he managed to deliver with relatively few words and, rather than take away from that, I give you Judge Walker:
"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, moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."
"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."
So there you have it, end of story...right? of course not...
As should be expected, the conservative, religious right has already filed for an appeal with the 9th circuit court and it is expected that the case will eventually make it to the United States Supreme court (where we can all hope that this will be put to rest for all eternity and the religious zealots will crawl back into whatever hole they came out of...I know, big hopes...). However, for the time being, the religious right is spouting off their hate-speak in the general direction of Judge Walker and for once I have a personal favorite idiotic statement of the day:
"Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,"
This was spouted off by Randy Thomasson of the religiously conservative group SaveCalifornia.com during an interview in which he described the ruling as a "terrible blow" to voters' rights. I, however, find it rather humorous due to another quote from the ruling which I have, until now held off on because I wanted to mention this last argument first.
Those who argue against the ruling have many reasons, however a very popular one is that the Judge should not be allowed to change what was voted into place by the people and that, if he does, it goes against the voters constitutional rights. However, in complete opposition to this, the Judge not only basis his ruling DIRECTLY off of the constitution, but also off of a ruling from 1943 which is hailed by those afflicted by religion due to its importance in being allowed to be religiously stubborn in public...I shall elaborate.
In 1943 a case in West Virginia (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) declared the freedom of speech and religion of a student overrides to some degree what a school can require of that student. In this case, it meant that the school could not require a student to salute or otherwise honor the flag (this is due to the fact that according to the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses it is a sin to hold any object in a place of honor such as you would God). This was a big deal for the religious folks, it meant they could get away with some forms of insanity and blame it on "religious freedom", however now that the case is being cited as one of the top precedents for the reversal of Prop 8 I wonder if they will still hold it in such high esteem. In case any of you were wondering exactly how Judge Walker used the reference in his case here is the quote from his ruling followed by the full excerpt from the original case:
"That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
So there you have it. It's not over by far, but as a first step it's a pretty big one and it sets enough precedent for the future that any ruling in opposition ought to be much easier to fight. There should be no reason for such cases to be put forth, as humans we shouldn't need to fight for the right to life and happiness, but that is the case in the modern age and most certainly when organized religion is involved but here's to hope and to a future where humans are humane and the world is a little bit brighter.
This is Tyrror from TehPainfulTruth and sometimes...the truth hurts...
I'm not entirely sure how much more gay tonight can get, however I'm determined to make it that much more so. I've got the soundtrack from Glee on in the background, I'm wearing my "Marriage is so gay" t-shirt, and I'm about to write an article about one of, what is very likely, the most prominent events of the modern age regarding civil rights and gay marriage.
For those of you who live under a rock, yesterday (Wednesday, August 4th) Judge Vaughn Walker of the California court system made the declaration that Proposition 8, the ban placed on gay marriage in 2008, was "unconstitutional"! Needless to say, today is a day for great rejoicing at such a decision, however that doesn't mean we can let our guard down...but first the good news.
What struck me, however, was not the ruling (that was just common sense to me) but the manner in which Judge Walker delivered it. While reading through snippets of his ruling I was amazed at the amount of conviction he managed to deliver with relatively few words and, rather than take away from that, I give you Judge Walker:
"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, moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."
"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."
So there you have it, end of story...right? of course not...
As should be expected, the conservative, religious right has already filed for an appeal with the 9th circuit court and it is expected that the case will eventually make it to the United States Supreme court (where we can all hope that this will be put to rest for all eternity and the religious zealots will crawl back into whatever hole they came out of...I know, big hopes...). However, for the time being, the religious right is spouting off their hate-speak in the general direction of Judge Walker and for once I have a personal favorite idiotic statement of the day:
"Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,"
This was spouted off by Randy Thomasson of the religiously conservative group SaveCalifornia.com during an interview in which he described the ruling as a "terrible blow" to voters' rights. I, however, find it rather humorous due to another quote from the ruling which I have, until now held off on because I wanted to mention this last argument first.
Those who argue against the ruling have many reasons, however a very popular one is that the Judge should not be allowed to change what was voted into place by the people and that, if he does, it goes against the voters constitutional rights. However, in complete opposition to this, the Judge not only basis his ruling DIRECTLY off of the constitution, but also off of a ruling from 1943 which is hailed by those afflicted by religion due to its importance in being allowed to be religiously stubborn in public...I shall elaborate.
In 1943 a case in West Virginia (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) declared the freedom of speech and religion of a student overrides to some degree what a school can require of that student. In this case, it meant that the school could not require a student to salute or otherwise honor the flag (this is due to the fact that according to the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses it is a sin to hold any object in a place of honor such as you would God). This was a big deal for the religious folks, it meant they could get away with some forms of insanity and blame it on "religious freedom", however now that the case is being cited as one of the top precedents for the reversal of Prop 8 I wonder if they will still hold it in such high esteem. In case any of you were wondering exactly how Judge Walker used the reference in his case here is the quote from his ruling followed by the full excerpt from the original case:
"That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
So there you have it. It's not over by far, but as a first step it's a pretty big one and it sets enough precedent for the future that any ruling in opposition ought to be much easier to fight. There should be no reason for such cases to be put forth, as humans we shouldn't need to fight for the right to life and happiness, but that is the case in the modern age and most certainly when organized religion is involved but here's to hope and to a future where humans are humane and the world is a little bit brighter.
This is Tyrror from TehPainfulTruth and sometimes...the truth hurts...