Created Wed 14th Oct 1:31pm PST by

Will the US District Court in California invalidate Prop 8?

Background: SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge refused today to dismiss a lawsuit challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage, setting the stage for the nation's first trial on the constitutionality of a law allowing only opposite-sex couples to wed.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, in a ruling from the bench in San Francisco, said a trial was needed to resolve crucial issues, including whether gays and lesbians are persecuted minorities entitled to judicial protection from discriminatory laws. He has scheduled the trial for January. The sponsors contended that Prop. 8 was based on an ages-old tradition of male-female marriage and the ability of opposite-sex couples to conceive children.

But Walker said the Supreme Court, in striking down laws against interracial marriage and by allowing prisoners to marry, had defined the right to wed as fundamental without limiting it to certain groups.

More info on Perry v. Schwarzenegger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger

Settlement details:As reported by a major mainstream news source.

Forecast history %

Yes

48%

52%

Question suspends in 32 weeks

Activity: H$3,775
Predictions: 12
Comments: 1

Suspend date: Sun 4th Jul 2010 11:59pm PST (32 weeks to go)

Initial likelihoods: Yes: 50%

Action history:

Created Wed 14th Oct 1:31pm PST by

lola

hide

Suspend date: Sun 4th Jul 2010 11:59pm PST (32 weeks to go) details

Get widget!

Post on Digg Delicious Reddit Facebook

Predictions (12)

2 weeks ago

bobyn42 Level 8, Super-Pro (H$6,892)

predicted Yes (H$85 at 48%)

5 weeks ago

bobyn42 Level 8, Super-Pro (H$6,892)

predicted Yes (H$100 at 47%)

5 weeks ago

rhino

predicted No (H$100 at 53%)

5 weeks ago

jhc360 Level 9, Expert (H$8,459)

predicted Yes (H$20 at 47%)

5 weeks ago

gtown

predicted No (H$100 at 49%)

Comments (1)

frogchop Level 17, Superdubber (H$1,664,681)

Seems to be that the judge's argument that "striking down laws against interracial marriage and by allowing prisoners to marry, had defined the right to wed as fundamental without limiting it to certain groups" fail to take the effect of the 14th amendment regarding the issues to race. Gender does not have equal protection under the constitution. Of course, the Equal Rights Act of the 1970s could have changed that, but the idiots at the time saw that as feminism run wild. Heaven help us if women were constitutionally protected to be treated equal under the law.

posted 3 weeks ago