Proposition 8 overturned inCalifornia

www.samesame.com.au
  • 41
  • 28
  • 9382

The Federal Court in San Francisco today overturned Proposition 8’s ban on gay marriage in California, ruling that same sex couples in the state have the right to be married.

Proposition 8 banned same sex marriage just months after the US Supreme Court made it legal. It was found by the Federal Courts to be in violation of the United States constitution due to denying equal rights to its citizens – in particular, its lesbian and gay citizens.

Judge Walker presided over a two-and-a-half week trial in January on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the ban is not constitutional because it creates two classes of people; One that can get married and another that cannot.

US Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the trial at the start of the year that took nearly three weeks.

Those in favour of Proposition 8 told the courts it was in the public’s interest to ensuring that the union of marriage stays exclusively between opposite sex couples, to promote procreation and the human survival.

Those against Proposition 8 argued that the ban which was passed with 52% of the vote created two classes of people out of it’s citizens, and it was cruelly unconstitutional.

In his ruling Judge Vaughn Walker wrote that the case against Prop 8 demonstrated overwhelming evidence that the ban violated their constitutional rights.

“The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose… Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Ellen DeGeneres welcomed the news via Twitter: “This just in: Equality Won!”

Sadly, the ruling may not be the last time we hear about the ban on gay marriage in California. The ruling on Proposition 8 is expected to be appealed in both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Social

  • Brightbear
  • Hessy
  • Tatsuya
  • thygir
  • dragonsflight
  • weinstein
  • LoveDrunk
  • dalenapier
  • urbanpitch
  • fiawhat
  • Zaney
  • munchcrunch71
  • SapphireRose
  • crazzymikey
  • djak
  • matthewd
  • clintyminty
  • datkindagal
  • hazyinseptember
  • JoshOnTheBus
  • kath_white
  • camiseta
  • alihogg
  • jimjazz
  • brodes13
  • PatrickandtheDeepEnd
  • Matt Akersten
  • Tim D

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
18401
randomdart

randomdart said on the 6th Aug, 2010



hey, hey, don't lump me in with him. I'm from England.

However, I agree with him that Australia is not progressive, nor liberal. Australians don't even know the definition of "liberal" hence the semantic atrocity that is the Liberal Party.

I disagree with his reasoning though.
BOR= bad.
Federal Hate Crime Legislation=they're called anti-discrimination laws...look them up. "hate crimes" in the sense of American hate crime laws piss me off so much. 2 white guys beat each other up? Assault for the both of them. A white guy and a black guy beat each other up? Racist fucker with assault and hate crime for the white guy, poor victim of society for the black guy.
eurolad seems to want to be the Netherlands...so maybe he should go there...and stay there. Jus' sayin'.

The reason Australia is conservative traditionally, is while there have been great periods of progression, they generally have happened under short lived, (at the time) unpopular governments, which were generally Labor. The longest lived Labor government was the Hawke/Keating years, which was generally rather conservative (particularly under Hawke). Menzies, Australia's longest serving prime minister was a bastion of conservatism and traditionalist ideas. Howard was similarly archaic. The Whitlam government, arguably the most progressive government in Australia's history, were dismissed in shame. (I STILL LOVE YOU GOOOOOOOOOUGH!!!!!!!)

Australian's fear change, which is (and this is an opinion here) largely due to the fact that for a long time we've had an ideology of Australia being blessed, perfect etc etc and people fear change will impede on that set up. We also have VERY strong religious affiliation, with only about 1/5th of Australians claiming no religious affiliation (as opposed to NZ with 1/3rd). Even those that don't hold a religious affiliation are generally agnostic as opposed to atheist. Australia is very strongly Judeo-Christian in its values and societal ethics (as opposed to say, Singapore, which holds no particular religious affiliation, and for example, honours all major religions holidays with public holidays).

randomdart

randomdart said on the 9th Aug, 2010

RandomArt

True, Australia has had a ratio of 3:1 'Conservative' vis 'Labor' governments basically. So Australia is formally quite conservative in a political sense. No, we don't like change much, but we don't have a monopoly on that by any means. There was a time when we were the richest, healthiest and most educated people in the world, around 1900. We had many social precedents which the world followed : 8 hour day, invalid and widows pensions etc etc.We had votes for women decades before the UK. By WW2 we had first world manufacturing - we built aircraft even. Sure, we had the White Australia policy up until 1972 but we had Maoris and black Americans in the first national trade union - ie it had more to with Imperial connexion and fear of cheap Chinese labour, than racism. True , our indigenous people suffered greatly. Some 90% voted to include the Aboriginals as citizens in 1968.

Australians have enjoyed a very peaceful, affluent and trouble free history. I feel we just don't appreciate this fact enough. I believe we have an ethos of egalitarianism. We are innately socialist . but I think the UK is much more so in effect. I think our society is amongst the more liberal, equitable and fair in the world. Our standard of living has been falling since 1900.

I was talking post Federation, which was in 1901, as before that Australia was not actually Australia. It was the colonies. Prior to Federation and the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, most colonies had individual immigration prevention laws, and particularly in Queensland and NSW these included preventing Maoris or "kanakas" and other Pacific Islanders into Australia. The others were indeed Chinese, but you're incorrect in assuming that the racism in Australia was purely about Asians, Maoris were strongly disliked as well as blacks. ALL of it was about fear of cheap labour. You said it was more about Imperial connection, and you're right, but the Imperial connection gave rise to the racism. The British have always had a "we'll take pity on the poor savages and as the higher class of people we will suffer and teach the savages a civilised way of life" attitude, and Australians had a very strong Anglophile identity - in fact until the end of WWI, after which many Australians became disillusioned by Britain, the majority of Australians ranked their allegiance/identity as "I am a citizen of Britain, of the Empire, of the Superior Race and of Australia".

Also, pretty much all the conventions you talked about that we had first occurred before Federation, and those that didn't were not matters of conservative v liberal. Things like welfare payments were fostered by our strong connection to Catholic Church in particular, but also the Anglican Church.

As for your points about the union movement and the 8 hour work day etc, I agree. Australia HAS gone backwards in terms of our union movement, largely due to Howard, the evil gnome.

Australians have a token stereotypical love of the "fair go" ethos, but in practice, it rarely comes into play.

As for your standard of living argument...I have no idea what you're talking about or citing there. Australia has a stronger economy, higher overall standard of living, greater income per person (accounting for inflation obviously), we're better educated NOW, not in 1900, where only about 60% of Australians finished primary school, and 20% graduated high school, with only 5% attending university. That's now 92% finish primary school, 72% finish high school and 30% attend university. The rise of the professional class (thanks to Whitlam's free university) has improved opportunities for everyone, but particularly women, as previously women were confined to secretary, nurse or school teacher essentially, whereas with the professional class the range of jobs available to them has drastically increased. The earning potential of the average Australian now is 4 times that of the average Australian in the 1970s, and 20 times more than the average Australian of 1901.

badamj2000

badamj2000 said on the 9th Aug, 2010

OMG, you're doing my head in! :)

I may have made a few errors.

Kanakas were virtual slaves taken from modern day New Caledonia to work in the sugar industry.
Moaris, were part of the British Empire - Treaty of Watangi etc?

As I said, back then we were richer compared to other nations. Now, Singapore has overtaken us. Our standard of living is falling in real terms for ages. We are doing more hours than ever and finding it difficult to afford hosing even with dual incomes.

I dont think that I have personally benefited from women entering the professions. Has it lead to a kinder, gentler world? Women were generally very sexist to me at university and in the Australian Public Service. True there would have been no gay lib, or Black rights, without women's lib.

In 1900 the statistics you cite, I think you will find were far better than other countries at the time. Our literacy rates were way higher - consider the Bulletin Newspaper - the working-man's Bible. Our egalitarian was facilitated by a strong economy and very high labour demands but low supply during the C19. Employers found it hard to keep their employees if they mistreated them. "Jack was a good as his master" . He could just hop on his horse ( few Brits had horses) and ride to the next farm/employee.
Sure, the impact of churches both Anglo/Catholic has been keen and that legacy is evident in a split between two main political parties, education systems ( uni V Colleges) etc etc. Sure welfare is predicated on moral issues.

Tertiary education is not free anymore and growing increasingly exclusive again.

randomdart

randomdart said on the 10th Aug, 2010

OMG, you're doing my head in! :)

I may have made a few errors.

Kanakas were virtual slaves taken from modern day New Caledonia to work in the sugar industry.
Moaris, were part of the British Empire - Treaty of Watangi etc?

As I said, back then we were richer compared to other nations. Now, Singapore has overtaken us. Our standard of living is falling in real terms for ages. We are doing more hours than ever and finding it difficult to afford hosing even with dual incomes.

I dont think that I have personally benefited from women entering the professions. Has it lead to a kinder, gentler world? Women were generally very sexist to me at university and in the Australian Public Service. True there would have been no gay lib, or Black rights, without women's lib.

In 1900 the statistics you cite, I think you will find were far better than other countries at the time. Our literacy rates were way higher - consider the Bulletin Newspaper - the working-man's Bible. Our egalitarian was facilitated by a strong economy and very high labour demands but low supply during the C19. Employers found it hard to keep their employees if they mistreated them. "Jack was a good as his master" . He could just hop on his horse ( few Brits had horses) and ride to the next farm/employee.
Sure, the impact of churches both Anglo/Catholic has been keen and that legacy is evident in a split between two main political parties, education systems ( uni V Colleges) etc etc. Sure welfare is predicated on moral issues.

Tertiary education is not free anymore and growing increasingly exclusive again.

Kanaka was a blanket name for Pacific Islanders - many were from Fiji if memory serves. You're right in that yes, they were brought to Australia as virtual slaves for sugar work, thus they were resented by the labour union movement as in the words of South Park "they took our jeeeeeeeeeeeeeerbs (jobs)". It actually originally referred to native Hawaiians. You are right in that I should have said Pacific Islanders, not Maoris, as they are specific to New Zealand, and under the Treaty of Waitangi were given rights as British subjects, however they were still looked down upon by "proper" (read: white) British subjects. Even though it was signed in the 1860s, I think, it was pretty much ignored until the 1970s, despite Maori outrage over this.

Ahhh, I understand your SOL argument now. You're meaning in terms of world standing, I was interpreting it in terms of comparative within Australia. I agree that Australia has not progressed as it should have, but I think world standing is less about Australia falling behind, and more about the rest of the world catching UP. Particularly in the case of Singapore. Japan was the first of the Asian nations to undergo RAPID development (from about the 1860s through to the 2000s, but they caught up with the rest of the world by the 1940s), and in Singapore this occurred post-WWII.

As for housing, Howard's fault. In 1999 Howard/Costello decreased the Captial Gains Tax from 50% to 25%, meaning you would be taxed less for buying an investment property and gaining income through renting it (which, as opposed to income, is listed as a capital gain) as opposed to earning income, as income tax is at a higher rate. Thus richies went nuts, buying investment properties and inflating the prices in the housing market, while simultaneously causing mass inflation in the rental market, fucking over both renters and entrants to the housing market. Yet another brilliant act of economic management from Honest John. -.-

As far as women benefiting from the rise of the professional class, they benefited the MOST, but they weren't the only ones. Men benefited as well. Also, the professional class made the average income rise, as the professional jobs were more highly valued and had higher salaries.

As for them being sexist towards you...does that mean they don't deserve the opportunity to earn? I think feminism is a bit trumped up and many actually mean "special treatment" when they say "equal rights" but it is also true that women have experienced, and continue to experience, a systematic oppression within society ("glass ceiling" etc etc) and even in areas that are pretty equal, there are still lingering feelings of resentment for that, even though there probably shouldn't be. As a comparison, to be gay is no longer illegal, but there is still resentment from the gay community that it was ever considered illegal, yes? Similar thing.

The economic conditions of that time were very different, though. Britain almost exclusively traded within the Empire, and as their largest colonies, us and Canada benefited the most from that arrangement. Upon their signing of EuroTrade agreements, then later joining the EU, they were overtaken as our biggest trading partner by Japan. As the world markets became freer, there was still very high demand, but much greater supply around the world. This isn't due to Australia's failing, but just a by-product of the free market.

Hmm...the Bulletin...yes...Australia for Australians. Turned into a right wing rag by the time it was scrapped. Still better than the Australian though. Ugh that rag is a poor excuse for a newspaper. Its only just better than the Advertiser...which is a poor indictment of its quality.