This is really good news; now maybe we can do the same over here as well
How great. Lets hope it works all the way to the top. Great news for our American brothers and sisters and all of us :-)
A victory for gay and lesbian Californians that is a victory for all…..
Another blow in our favour in this historic civil rights struggle
Now lets bring the fight in Britain
Absolutely Fantastic! Now let’s take it GLOBAL and get equal rights everywhere!
So does this mean Gay couples will be allowed to marry again in California within days or weeks, or is it still in limbo until the prop 8 supporters have taken it to the supreme court?
Great news! Just a pity Gordon Brown wasn’t as supportive of GLB&T marriage in the UK, when he was in a position to do something about it.
Wonderful news! The bigots lost. This judgement will have ramifications for other states. I hope marriages will recommence soon and if it now goes to the Supreme court that it will end up with an outcome that reinforces equal rights.
Gareth – at this moment, gays and lesbians still can’t marry in California – the judge has issues a temporary stay on the ruling until he can rule on a longer stay that would last until the appeal is decided. We should know within a few weeks whether he issues the longer stay or not. Hopefully he won’t and gays and lesbians in California can start marrying again….
It sounds like Judge Walker did issue a stay pending appeal, which means no marriages yet. The 9th Circuit can either decide to uphold or strike down the stay when they decide if they are going to hear the appeal. In any case, his ruling is incredible. No new evidence will be admissible. The anti-marriage forces will have to keep defending the pathetic witnesses and arguments already presented.
Thanks for clearing that up..lets hope that the ban is officially lifted soon!!
CNN got it wrong. He will rule on a stay on Friday 6th. It looks likely he will refuse one from the language of the judgement. The losers will then immediately go to the Court above for a stay until they can hear the Appeal, and that court may be more minded to grant it.
Hopefully once this gets to the supreme court, it is once again ruled unconstitutional to deny us our marriage rights.
Then gay marriage will be the law of the land, all across America.
The 9th circuit will probably uphold Judge Walker’s decision. So to David Cameron I say, are you paying attention? Banning same-sex couples from marrying is nothing more than discrimination. Take your head out of the sand and start doing the right thing by allowing us to marry in the UK. If he’s so committed to full equality, he’ll follow Judge Walker’s ruling. Well done, California, you put the UK to shame where not one of us can marry. There will be no full equality in our own country until the ban is lifted. Cameron should have the guts and the common decency put an end to it once and for all.
A really important ruling by Judge Walker, everything needs to change from here on.
And yes Robert,I agree…
Cameron,are you paying attention?
Stonewall, are you paying attention?
Now, can we expect our discriminatory Civil Partnership to be transformed into Full Same-Sex Civil Marriage in an equal society Messrs Cameron/Clegg?
A GOLD STAR FOR CALIFORNIA
Greetings from the USA!
Check the links, here are all the the precious arguments canceling the opposition step by step:
Good news –
of course Brown forgot to tell them that their marriage wouldn’t be recognised here as well!!!! WE DON’T HAVE GAY MARRIAGE!
Also didn’t Brown also say he was pushing to get the CP recognised abroad. What exactly did he do, did he get the CP recognised in California? Is the Duthc gay marriage recognised there?
Good news for the Californians but how do they recognise foeign partnerships?
Walker, California Judge! ;) (and a gay one, by the way)
Whoooohoooo!!!! Almost there,California!
When this trial was initially proposed, many gay rights organisations opposed it, feeling “now wasn’t the time”. They have since come around and now celebrate this victory.
Perhaps there’s a lesson in that for Stonewall. If not, perhaps we need to get a better gay rights charity in place to properly campaign for our rights.
It is not helpful for political questions to be converted into legal questions and taken to a judge (or sometimes a panel of judges) to decide. More often that not, rights secured by courts rather than elected parliaments or congresses lack legitimacy or widespread support.
de Villiers – but sometimes elected parliaments or congresses are more concerned with votes and not equality and rights, that why the courts are there, they shouldn’t in therory be politically motivated and are there to ensure that justice is upheld!
The irrational supporters of Prop8 hit the wall of precision legal reasoning at light-speed and came off worst for it. The fundamental basis of their entire efforts was shown by the learned Judge to be nothing more than motivated hatred for others who are different from themselves. The grounds for appeal must be well founded either in a challenge to findings of fact (impossible in this case) or interpretation or misapplication of law (more than doubtful). I hope they do continue with this hopeless case because it can only prove to the world what a collection of liars and hatemongers they are in the promotion of it. Blankenhorn and Hak – Shing William Tam the two rotten pillars upon which the religious homophobes hoped to hold up their worthless case became in fact the best possible witnesses against them. Congratulations to our American Brothers and Sisters, well done to the advocates who fought our side.
Excellent news! :D But what will happen if it does get to the Supreme Court? :s Is it correct that if that Court rules in favour of same sex marriage, then it’ll become federal law? Can it be that easy?
It made me sick to read what Gordon Brown said. How dare he pontificate about discrimination when he was quite happy to discriminate against same sex couples in this country. And is that why he used the word “partnerships” (“Proposition 8…this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships.”) rather than the word ‘marriage’?
No 21: Jae: you say:
“When this trial was initially proposed, many gay rights organisations opposed it, feeling “now wasn’t the time”. They have since come around and now celebrate this victory.”
Are you speaking about the HRC (Human Rights Campaign)?
From what I can make out about them is that they are the same as Stonewall – more worried about maintainig their connections with those in power, rather than fighting for the rights of the communities they claim to represent.
HRC joined Freedom to Marry, ACLU, Lamda Legal, GLAAD, Victory Fund, Log Cabin Republicans, and PFLAG in denouncing the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit, saying in an open letter, “Rather than filing premature lawsuits, we need to talk to our friends, family and neighbors, and help them understand why denial of the freedom to marry is wrong.” ”
Now they are thrilled.
Lesson to be learned:
DON’T ASSUME THAT THE GAY GROUPS WHO DERIVE THEIR INFLUENCE FROM THEIR PROXIMITY TO POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE YOUR INTERESTS AT HEART.
I’m looking in particular at Stonewall UK here.
The 9th circuit in California is the most liberal in all of the United States and will probably uphold Judge Walker’s decision at which point gay couples can resume applying for marriage licences. This has huge implications for the other states where a ban on same-sex marriage is in place. Since this case will have set precedent, it is unlikely that any conservative judges will have an easy time opposing it. The horse is out of the barn and its never going back in. Cameron, StonewallUK et al, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, SEPARATE UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME IS NEVER EQUAL OR ABOUT FULL EQUALITY, its nothing more than segregation. I know of no other group of people in our country that is discriminated against in this manner. The ban should be lifted and Cameron, if he’s really committed to FULL equality, should make sure it happens before the next election and not use it as an election campaign issue just to get more gay votes then do nothing once re-elected.
> de Villiers – but sometimes elected parliaments or congresses are more concerned with votes and not equality and rights
All rights are political rights. For a court to determine what is a right is to convert a political question into a legal question for resolution by one judge.
In the case of the Supreme Court there are 9 Judges. Appellate Courts have 3. There are many good examples of the absolute necessity of the Judiciary to affirm the Rights guaranteed in the Constitution and to prevent the tyranny of the irrational and the unlawful over minorities. This is yet one more example of the Courts restating the Constitutional law applicable, as in this situation. The Court being the protector of rights in the face of the unlawful and the irrational who would deny them to the entitled. The religionists, and the affiliated shabby liars who make up that ragbag of the disreputably intentioned to deprive others of their Constitutional Rights are now predictably, ranting and raving having been delivered of a well aimed swift kick up the backside. The fight goes on, but make no mistake about it, they lost an important battle today, one that they may not recover from. I look forward to seeing the “Church of the Latterday Saints” lose its tax exempt status because this is a further example of the deceit they promulgate, its main activities are those of a political organisation and should be dealt with as such.
> There are many good examples of the absolute necessity of the Judiciary to affirm the Rights guaranteed in the Constitution
What is a right as guaranteed by the Constitution is still a political matter. There is much disagreement still as to whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to have an abortion. Decades after a court ruling on this decision, many still see it as “wrongly decided”.
Those who think that judges have done no more than protect a right that already existed will have already held the view that abortion was protected by the Constitution. Those who thought that the Constitution protected no such right will consider that the judges made law. For either position, whether or not the constitution protected this is a political question. What is considered to be “tyranny” is, similarly, just another political evaluation.
That the decision is taken first by one judge at first instance, then adjudicated upon by an appellate panel of three and then a final appeal panel of five or nine does not change the position that a handful of individuals decide the political nature of rights over a parliament or a congress.
It is as if the important rights of hundreds of millions of people are determined not by an fluid, elected body representing the populous and responsive to its changes in cultural values and mores but a fixed panel of twelve or thirteen people, there for life.
This is about Gay rights, gay marriage not about abortion. Nobody has taken any rights away from the hundreds of millions who are eligible to vote. What they are not eligible to vote on in the first place are matters that violate the Constitution. So don’t be that surprised when the Courts defend the Constitution to make that understood. The facts are that a collective of religious nutcases decided to spew their hate over what they fondly imagined was a passive minority, they were wrong. The minority fought back and proved to the watching world that behind all the “family values” hypocracy being vomited out was pure unreasoning hate against gay men and women nothing more. The message is this and it could not be more clear, religion and the state are separate under the Constitution and will always be so, get over it. Don’t like Gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay. Mind your own business, get on with your own life and keep your crazy religious ideas out of other peoples lives. It’s really that simple. All the so called ‘Churches’ that promoted discrimination against Gays in this Prop8 fiasco must have their tax exempt status removed because they are political organisations and should be taxed accordingly.
For an alternative perspective I refer you to: