California's Prop 8 Overturned

[Msterbeau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,2696248.story

"Judge says the same-sex marriage ban was rooted in 'moral disapproval' and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Opponents vow to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court."

[Slogo]

As a heterosexual who finds nothing physically appealing about 2 men having sex, I say to them...Congrats.

[Rev.Reverence]

The linkey died...still, EQUALITY WIN!~

[Msterbeau]

Proposition 8: Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles —

A federal judge declared California's

ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.

Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the

U.S. Supreme Court

during the next few years.

It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing.

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal.

Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process," Pugno said.

He called it "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University law school.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said. To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he said.

In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior."

§

He called the exclusion of same-couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage."

"That time has passed," he wrote.

Although sexual orientation deserves the constitutional protection given to race and gender, Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional even if gays and lesbians were afforded a lesser status, Walker said. His ruling stressed that there was no rational justification for banning gays from marriage.

To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.

Lawyers for the two couples who challenged Proposition 8 said they were confident that higher courts would uphold Walker's ruling.

"We will fight hard so that the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, very careful, thoughtful, analytical opinion by this judge will be brought into fruition as soon as possible," pledged Ted Olson, one of the lawyers in the case.

Other gay rights lawyers predicted that the ruling would change the tenor of the legal debate in the courts.

"This is a tour de force — a grand slam on every count," said Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling."

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

The suit was the brainchild of a gay political strategist in Los Angeles who formed a nonprofit to finance the litigation.

The group hired two legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the ballot measure. Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a conservative icon, signed on with litigator David Boies, a liberal who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Gay-rights groups had opposed the lawsuit, fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule against marriage rights and create a precedent that could take decades to overturn.

But after the suit was filed, gay rights lawyers flocked to support it, filing friend-of-court arguments on why Proposition 8 should be overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban, leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum. They hired a team of lawyers experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Proposition 8 passed with a 52.3% vote six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

At trial, the opponents of Prop. 8 presented witnesses who cited studies that showed children reared from birth by gay and lesbian couples do as well as children born into opposite-sex families. They also testified that the clamor for marriage in the gay community had given the institution of marriage greater esteem.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.

When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

The trial nevertheless was widely covered, with some groups doing minute-by-minute blogging. Law professors brought their students to watch the top-notch legal theater.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

awesome news! :D

gotta love the 80 findings of fact - taking up 53 pages of the 138-page decision - that the higher courts will have to give serious weight to.

[TygerLili]

[machine]

What is the purpose of voting if 1 person can void the will of 7,000,000+ others?

[phee]

What is the purpose of voting if 1 person can void the will of 7,000,000+ others?

We elect the people who fill that role.... that is where the voting has more of an effect.... the elected officials

[machine]

We elect the people who fill that role.... that is where the voting has more of an effect.... the elected officials

This judge was not elected...

[phee]

This judge was not elected...

But the person who put him there was....

(See why I think this country is an oligarchy?)

[Slogo]

Judges aren't supposed to be elected. That is the separation of powers. They were designed to be unaccountable to the public that way we don't just have mob rule. Unelected judges also struck down segregation, which was unpopular in it's time.

[Msterbeau]

What is the purpose of voting if 1 person can void the will of 7,000,000+ others?

When 7,000,000 try to take the rights of minority groups away. Remember when woman couldn't vote? Nor blacks? The courts are one of our governments checks and balances. The majority are not always right and part of the court's job is to make sure that constitutionally protected rights are not taken away by misguided voters.

[n0Mad]

What is the purpose of voting if 1 person can void the will of 7,000,000+ others?

That argument would be valid if we lived in a democracy where each vote counts, but that is not the case. We live in a republic, where the only thing our votes do is select the people to make decisions for us. Sure, they usually do it in accordance with popular opinion, but not always.

[machine]

When 7,000,000 try to take the rights of minority groups away. Remember when woman couldn't vote? Nor blacks? The courts are one of our governments checks and balances. The majority are not always right and part of the court's job is to make sure that constitutionally protected rights are not taken away by misguided voters.

"Misguided voters". That comment is a little bit ignorant and very biased. Just because 1 gay judge says so, 7,000,000 others are wrong?

These 7,000,000 CHOSE to vote this way, just as anyone else CHOOSES to live their life in whatever way they would like...

Why not put it to a vote again and have the minority get out the vote this time?

This is clearly going to the Supreme Court, and provided it's not all commie-lezbots like Kagan, it may have a fair trial, other wise, we are back in to the times when voters don't have a say and it's all Government Government Government....

[Msterbeau]

"Misguided voters". That comment is a little bit ignorant and very biased. Just because 1 gay judge says so, 7,000,000 others are wrong?

These 7,000,000 CHOSE to vote this way, just as anyone else CHOOSES to live their life in whatever way they would like...

Why not put it to a vote again and have the minority get out the vote this time?

This is clearly going to the Supreme Court, and provided it's not all commie-lezbots like Kagan, it may have a fair trial, other wise, we are back in to the times when voters don't have a say and it's all Government Government Government....

Did you actually read anything more on this? The judge is actually pretty conservative. What's ignorant and biased is for one group of people to force another group of people to live by their standards. Funny how conservatives are all about freedom, except when it doesn't jibe with their values. The whole idea of an amendment to restrict who can wed whom is unconstitutional and unethical. That's what the judge's job is in this case, to make sure what the voters choose is actually within the framework of the basis for our country. What don't you get about that?

[machine]

Did you actually read anything more on this? The judge is actually pretty conservative. What's ignorant and biased is for one group of people to force another group of people to live by their standards. Funny how conservatives are all about freedom, except when it doesn't jibe with their values. The whole idea of an amendment to restrict who can wed whom is unconstitutional and unethical. That's what the judge's job is in this case, to make sure what the voters choose is actually within the framework of the basis for our country. What don't you get about that?

If that was the case, this never would have been put before a vote. If you don't CARE about the voter's input, why hold a vote?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You knwo whats funny about this whole mess... no one seems to be accuratly reporting what Prop 8 was... Yes, it banned "gay marrige" but it created Civil Unions with all the benefits of marrige... To me, this debate has gone from wanting Equal Rights to wanting to spit in peoples faces.

[freydis]

You knwo whats funny about this whole mess... no one seems to be accuratly reporting what Prop 8 was... Yes, it banned "gay marrige" but it created Civil Unions with all the benefits of marrige... To me, this debate has gone from wanting Equal Rights to wanting to spit in peoples faces.

....and creating civil unions in place of equal right to marriage wasnt a spit in the face in the first place?

"You cant be like us, because we dont like you. But here, you can have this lesser thing to further mark you apart, and you should be happy with it."

....yeah, whatever. Really equal, that.

And machine? Someone else had a good point. People at one point voted for segregation laws, and other nasty, exclusionist, bigoted laws too. Just because 7,000,000+ people voted for it doesnt mean its a good law that should stand. The system is built the way it is so that if people vote something in and it doesnt work, it can be fixed without using taxpayer money to hold another vote.

[Druella]

I am proud to be a californian again... GO GAYS!!!

[phee]

You knwo whats funny about this whole mess... no one seems to be accuratly reporting what Prop 8 was... Yes, it banned "gay marrige" but it created Civil Unions with all the benefits of marrige... To me, this debate has gone from wanting Equal Rights to wanting to spit in peoples faces.

Yes of course.... we have never tired "separate but equal before"... we should give it a try!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Yes of course.... we have never tired "separate but equal before"... we should give it a try!

*sigh* I was pretty sure you knew my views on marrige. Let me explain for those that don;t know and for those who seem to forget when it doesn't help thier cause to remember.

I want ALL marrige to become Civil Unions.. including mine. The goverment has only been involved in marrige for about 150-175 years. They only got involved in marrige to settle property disputes when marriges dissolve. Marrige has also not always been a religous event. The "Church" has only gotten involved in marrige in the last 400 or so years and only performed the ceremony in the last 250-300. yet, marrige has existed in almost every culture that has ever been. It has always been (except in those rare cultures) a oath taken between one man and one woman.

So, for legal purposes, all marriges should be civil unions to take care of the legal side of things. If the couple wants to get married in a Church so as to get the Church's Blessing.. or would rather take thier Vows in a spring field with naked hippies... fine and dandy.

This whole fight is about a group of people who want certian legal rights and another group of people that want the meaning of a word to stay what it has always been. There is a middle ground that can make everyone happy if everyone involved stops trying to stab the other side in the eye at every chance. That middle ground is Civil Unions for everyone.

[phee]

*sigh* I was pretty sure you knew my views on marrige. Let me explain for those that don;t know and for those who seem to forget when it doesn't help thier cause to remember.

I want ALL marrige to become Civil Unions.. including mine. The goverment has only been involved in marrige for about 150-175 years. They only got involved in marrige to settle property disputes when marriges dissolve. Marrige has also not always been a religous event. The "Church" has only gotten involved in marrige in the last 400 or so years and only performed the ceremony in the last 250-300. yet, marrige has existed in almost every culture that has ever been. It has always been (except in those rare cultures) a oath taken between one man and one woman.

So, for legal purposes, all marriges should be civil unions to take care of the legal side of things. If the couple wants to get married in a Church so as to get the Church's Blessing.. or would rather take thier Vows in a spring field with naked hippies... fine and dandy.

This whole fight is about a group of people who want certian legal rights and another group of people that want the meaning of a word to stay what it has always been. There is a middle ground that can make everyone happy if everyone involved stops trying to stab the other side in the eye at every chance. That middle ground is Civil Unions for everyone.

I agree with your views here.... but that is not what happened in California.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I agree with your views here.... but that is not what happened in California.

California fully recognizes Civil Unions legally.. and has for years for Civil unions enacted in other states or countries. Prop 8 just barred them from traditional marrige and established Civil unions for gays within California... This ruling only struck down the marrige part.

[phee]

California fully recognizes Civil Unions legally.. and has for years for Civil unions enacted in other states or countries. Prop 8 just barred them from traditional marrige and established Civil unions for gays within California... This ruling only struck down the marrige part.

So in other words... straight people have the right to something that gay people don't... if gay people could get married the same way as straight people, or if straight people could not get married either... I would not have an issue.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

So in other words... straight people have the right to something that gay people don't... if gay people could get married the same way as straight people, or if straight people could not get married either... I would not have an issue.

What exactly do straight people have the Right to do that Gays do not when it comes to Civil Union vs Marrige? A Civil Union, as recognized by California and 9 other states, comes with all the same Rights and Privlidges as marrige.

As for the ceremony... there is no law that keeps anyone from being married in the way of thier choosing. There are also no laws that force anyone to have any specific ceremony to be recognized. I know people that have gotten the full blown Church wedding and others that did an old fashion hand fasting (jumping over the broom included)... all thier marriges are equal in the eyes of the Law.