zhadrani: (YAAAAAY)
[personal profile] zhadrani
PROP 8 OVERTURNED FUCK YESSSSS!!!! 8DDD!!!

This makes me so happy I want to dance in the streets. .../PROCEEDS TO DANCE IN THE STREETS. And the actual ruling, unnnf, so intelligent and fair and sensible, it's just as satisfying as reading through the rationale for the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover ruling when the judge gave Intelligent Design and the people trying to weasel it into classrooms as 'science' a thorough kicking in the rear end. 8D


Shall I quote bits of it?? YES, I THINK I SHALL. /snags shamelessly from here.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's conclusion, page 135:

"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. 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.

On the overturning of Proposition 8, page 136:

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result ...

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently ... prohibiting the official defendants [state of California] from applying or enforcing Proposition 8..."

On why voters are not able to ban gay marriage in California, page 24: [Updated, 2:51 p.m.]

"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."

SWEET LADY JUSTICE, COME HERE, LET ME CUDDLE AND SMOOCH YOU AND RAISE MY MIDDLE FINGER IN SALUTE TO THE OUTRAGED SUPPORTERS OF PROP 8, MWAHAHAHAHA. *pant, pant...smoothing hair and attempting to sound like a level-headed and rational human being again.* Eh-hem... >.> Have some more highlights here, and the above link also includes some beautiful smackdown of the one witness Prop 8 proponents brought out to to 'testify' that children raised by their married & biological parents do better than children raised by...anyone else, which is such BS that it boggles my mind. Take a ride on the clue train, people, and learn some more about developmental psychology, this is such a non-issue in the field.

I know that opponents of this ruling are already planning an appeal and that it will doubtless go all the way to the Supreme Court, and that this is a first world problem etc etc etc., but I am NOT letting any of that harsh my mood from this news. HURRAY FOR AMERICA NOT SUCKING TODAY!!! \o/!!!!

(On this specific issue, anyway. >.> Eh-hem.)

/dancedancedancedanceCaramelldansendancedancedance

ETA: Oh, oh, I just found this other tidbit, which is one of the most important parts of the whole ruling, in my opinion, and also gives a right proper slap of good sense across the face of all the opponents of this decision who keep making righteously disappointed noises about this judge overturning 'the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process'. (HAH.)

The fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative is irrelevant because "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Yessss. Honestly, those insufferable people. If, purely hypothetically, all of those 7 million Californians had joined the rest in voting against Prop 8, would these hypocrits be acknowledging this same argument now? No, because it wouldn't suit their goals. All of their butthurt 'bawww'ing about democratic process, it's so ridiculous and I have no respect for it whatsoever. It'd be nice if we'd democratically elected to legalize gay marriage (and a survey shows that if the same vote had happened today, 51% of Californians would vote to do so!), it would show we had good sense, but it's not necessary in order to affirm people's basic rights. That would be 'tyranny of the majority', and I, for one, am glad that the courts can prevent that. (>.> And that the courts had the sense and constitutional righteousness on their side to do so, here.)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-05 02:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] best-of-five.livejournal.com
GOD, THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FAN-FUCKIN-TASTIC!!!!!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-05 08:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fantasyfan17.livejournal.com
...

/STILL BELATEDLY JOINS IN DANCING

Profile

zhadrani: (Default)
zhadrani

August 2010

S M T W T F S
123 4567
89101112 13 14
15161718192021
22232425 262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags