Prop 8 Overturned!
hogginthefogg
6,098 Posts
Took 'em long enough, but they finally got it right.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1
Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage
(08-04) 14:34 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge today struck down Proposition 8, the voter-passed November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that the ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional due process and equal protection rights of a pair of couples - one lesbian and one gay - who sued.
The judge ordered an injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8 but issued a temporary stay until he decides whether to suspend his ruling while it is being appealed. The stay means that same-sex couples are still prohibited from marrying.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in a 136-page ruling.
He said the ballot measure "prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis."
The constitutional right to marry, Walker said, "protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender." He also said domestic partnerships in California, available to same-sex couples, are a "substitute and inferior institution" that lack the social meaning and cultural status of marriage.
Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, "For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."
Prop. 8's sponsors are planning an immediate appeal.
"In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process," said Brian Raum, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who was part of the legal team defending Prop. 8.
Prop. 8 was approved by 52 percent of voters in November 2008. It amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians.
The state court upheld the initiative last May, but left in place the same-sex marriages performed in the state before Prop. 8 passed.
Walker presided over a nonjury trial in January, the first ever held in a federal court on the issue. The plaintiffs, two gay men from Burbank and two lesbians from Berkeley, testified that their hopes to be married were thwarted by the voters.
Walker's ruling is certain to be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012.
A group that supports same-sex marriage is planning a march from the Castro district to City Hall, starting at 5 p.m., followed by a rally from 6:45 to 8 p.m.
Outside the U.S. District Court, dozens of people - most supporters of same-sex marriage - gathered long before ruling was announced. They carried American flags, played Bob Marley's "Get Up, Stand Up" and exchanged hugs.
A smaller group of supporters of Prop. 8 also stood outside the courthouse, carrying signs that read "Marriage = man and woman" and "Recriminalize sodomy."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1
Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage
(08-04) 14:34 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge today struck down Proposition 8, the voter-passed November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that the ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional due process and equal protection rights of a pair of couples - one lesbian and one gay - who sued.
The judge ordered an injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8 but issued a temporary stay until he decides whether to suspend his ruling while it is being appealed. The stay means that same-sex couples are still prohibited from marrying.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in a 136-page ruling.
He said the ballot measure "prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis."
The constitutional right to marry, Walker said, "protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender." He also said domestic partnerships in California, available to same-sex couples, are a "substitute and inferior institution" that lack the social meaning and cultural status of marriage.
Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, "For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."
Prop. 8's sponsors are planning an immediate appeal.
"In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process," said Brian Raum, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who was part of the legal team defending Prop. 8.
Prop. 8 was approved by 52 percent of voters in November 2008. It amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians.
The state court upheld the initiative last May, but left in place the same-sex marriages performed in the state before Prop. 8 passed.
Walker presided over a nonjury trial in January, the first ever held in a federal court on the issue. The plaintiffs, two gay men from Burbank and two lesbians from Berkeley, testified that their hopes to be married were thwarted by the voters.
Walker's ruling is certain to be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012.
A group that supports same-sex marriage is planning a march from the Castro district to City Hall, starting at 5 p.m., followed by a rally from 6:45 to 8 p.m.
Outside the U.S. District Court, dozens of people - most supporters of same-sex marriage - gathered long before ruling was announced. They carried American flags, played Bob Marley's "Get Up, Stand Up" and exchanged hugs.
A smaller group of supporters of Prop. 8 also stood outside the courthouse, carrying signs that read "Marriage = man and woman" and "Recriminalize sodomy."
Comments
This part is particularly delicious:
Actually, "in America," the power to modify the Consitution in a way that abridges peoples' most basic rights is reserved to the federal legislature. It is most definitely not done via state level popular referenda.
You'r e welcome.
These Grrrls 'heart' Boies
It's not assured that it will, right? If 9th Court overturns, the SC may opt to just let that stand, no?
The 9th is notoriously liberal?
Awesome BTW
The Supreme Court can decline to grant certiori, but I don't think that will happen. This is an opportunity to settle a major Constitutional issue. Many longtime gay rights activists actually hope that it won't get there, since an unfavorable result is extremely likely with the current Court. As you probably know, the case was brought by attorneys without a history in that community. The wild card is Ted Olson's history before the Court and personal relationships with the Justices.
He did -- the quotes I've read thus far are pretty fantastic. I'm very glad to hear about this.
Yeah, I've been following this angle for a minute. I would have preferred to see CA voters defeat this at the ballot (despite hating the state proposition system). Just doesn't feel like the most supportive SC would want on a case like this.
Way too early to break out the bubbly. This is just the beginning...
I feel ya. I haven't been following as close as I should.
By the above measure the ruling is atrocious.
I suppose you also feel that way about Loving v. Virginia (striking down laws against interracial marriage), Brown v. Board of Education (just say no to Jim Crow) and Lawrence v. Texas (say goodnight, sodomy laws).
We have different definitions of atrocious.
I seriously wonder what he's still doing here, or who he's an alias for. It's like 3 pointless salvos every morning, and then gone.
Dolo Yeung
http://soulstrutcowards.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the warning, I hadn't noticed him before.
LET ME BE CLEAR, not only do homosexuals have no constitutional right to sate sanctioned marriage but no-one has a constitutional right to state sanctioned marriage. If states around the country simply decided to stop issuing marriage liscences then not a single persons rights would be infringed. It is preposterous that there are people who think they have a constitutional right to have a state recognise them as belonging to special class which receives benefits not available to those outside that class. Rights are universal. It is obviously impossible to have a universal right to be treated differently.
The gays chief complaint is not that are victims of discrimination, it is that the state wont allow them to join in as victors of discrimination.
Having established the obvious constitutional question we move on to Judge Walkers ridiculous ruling. This is, without exaggeration, perhaps equal in disgrace to Roe in terms of its contempt for law and the american idea. There is hardly anything in it which can seriously be described as legal reasoning. For 70% of the ruling Walker is playing at being a social scientist, for another 25% he is playing at the moral philosopher, and only in 5% does he even resemble a jurist.
He essentially finds that the state of California has been discriminatory in its discrimination and must makes its discrimination less discriminatory by adding same sex couples to the list of people it discriminates in favor of. Does the previous sentence make any sense? No. Does it accurately summarise the ruling? YES. He finds that California cannot treat people differently in the way it treats people differently and does so by claiming authority not available to him.
U RETARDS WILL PAY FOR YOUR EXPEDIENCE. YOU CONTINUOUSLY FUCK OVER PROCESS BECAUSE YOU LIKE A PARTICULAR RESULT. BUT TRUST ME, THE MORE YOU DAMAGE THE PROCESS THE LESS AND LESS YOULL LIKE THE RESULTS. HOPEFULLY WE DONT DEVOLE INTO A JUDICIAL AUTOCRACY BEFORE YOU COWARDS LEARN THE ERRORS OF YOUR WAYS.
Why would I update? the blog was only a protest at the villainous behaviour of the mods here in their campaign against me. Having launched the first successful protest in history and triumphed there is no need for further posts. Every post I make on this board is another float added to my never ending victory parade.
note the complete and utter pwning of chris wallace.
A perfect example of self-trolling.
Self-trolling:
Self-trolling often occurs after playing forumwarz too much. This is when a troll makes too much effort to be noticed and all the other users simply ignore him. After making a complete tit of himself the troll will declare himself successful while everyone else facepalms.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Trolls_Trolling_Trolls