You are hereForums / Issues / Other Issues / Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
From CNN. A Federal judge in California has ruled that Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, is unconstituitonal. This is a great day for those who support gay marriage and equality for all. The ruling is quite amazing-it's lengthy but worth reading in detail. I really can't believe what a weak case the anti-gay marriage lawyers presented. It was based on opinion and really bad witnesses. Clearly they did not prepare as well as the other side but part of the problem is that the case for banning gay marriage is just weak to begin with. It's based on assumptions, myths and opinions. I will celebrate this victory, but it's not over yet. This decision will be appealed for sure and it's fate will probably end up in our ultra-conservative Supreme Court. Oddly, I still have confidence justice will prevail. If Prop 8 stands, couldn't states go backwards and vote to ban inter-racial marriage, too? Just because 51% of voters in a state want to deny equal rights to a minority should not allow the constitution to be overpowered.The rights inherent in our consititution are for ALL Americans, not just some.
(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution -- handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 136-page opinion, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.
From Walker's Ruling:
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.
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents' case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.
The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. ... The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code."
about Judge Walker...
Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1966 and Stanford Law School in 1970. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher from 1971 to 1972, he practiced in San Francisco at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro from 1972 until his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to the federal district court. Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
Just a few random thoughts from me:
1.) Judge Walker is one of a few openly gay jurists on the federal bench -- imagine that, a gay conservative jurist...and one with common sense.
2.) Kelly, their case was weak because you can't argue stripping someone's rights away using smears, homophobic slurs and purported child recruitment activities by gays -- those tactics work quite well for a dumb electorate though. Give them credit, they did try to use that one of marriage's sole purpose is procreation. Were any of you asked that when you applied for a license from the state?
3.) Get a grip, straight people give us gay people...its not like some bus or space ship shows up and drops gay people off at a destination, despite what some think.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
Just for the record, Judge Walker has never confirmed or denied rumors that he is gay, so we need to be careful to say he is "openly gay" when that is not the case. Yes, he may be gay but he is very private and not open about it. Also, would there be uproar if a judge ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional and he was married and openly heterosexual? Would we say his straight lifesysle biased his decision? I'm sure it would not even enter into the post-discussion and debate. A judge is supposed to judge based on the facts which is clearly what Judge Walker did. I don't care how "openly gay" or "straighter than a pin" the judge assigned to this case was, the case for Prop 8 was utterly weak and not backed up by facts. The correct, fair judgement in this case had nothing to do with the judge's sexual orientation and everything to do with the cases presented. One strong. One very weak. One witness in support of Prop 8 actually told the judge he got his info about how bad it is for kids to have gay parents from "the internet." That's exactly what he said. That was his specific source: the internet. What a joke-I'm surprised the judge did not scold the anti-gay marriage team for negligence and lack of preparation.
This is from FactCheck.org:
Federal Judge Not ‘Open’ About His Sexual Orientation
On CBS’ "Face the Nation," Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker — who ruled against California’s same-sex law — was "openly gay." However, Walker has not publicly commented on his sexual orientation. In fact, he has sought to avoid any discussion of the issue while presiding over this and other cases involving gay rights.
In February, San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross wrote that the "biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay." The columnists concluded as much after interviews with unnamed gay politicians and lawyers, saying they were told that Walker "has never taken pains to disguise — or advertise — his orientation."
Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush, declined comment when asked by the paper about his sexual orientation. The columnists wrote: "Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to us when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit."
After his ruling, the Associated Press sought Walker’s response to allegations by critics of the ruling that his sexual orientation influenced his decision. But he did not respond to the AP’s request for an interview.
True, but one need not be "openly" gay to be an acknowledged homosexual. I mean if asked he would probably say yes I am, but of course the natural presumption is that everyone is straight. And his sexuality is and should be as irrelevant as an unmarried straight judge deciding the fairness in a dispute of a married couple seeking a divorce... particularly if he followed the spirit and letter of the constitution.
One class of people can and should never be allowed to take away the rights of someone else just because they don't like another group of people. That would be like California voters deciding to adopt a constitutional ban on religion in the state. Just because a majority thinks that's a good idea, the constitution forbids it regardless of what a majority might think.
That notwithstanding, Prop 8 supporters, based on his ruling today to let his stay of marriage expire next Thursday, indicates that Prop 8 supporters lack any standing to appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit because they did not prove that they will be harmed by his decision. If legal memory is correct, the State of California is the only "person" with standing for it will be directly impacted by having to add this new "class" of people to the marriage rolls and all the work associated processing, etc., etc. The governor and Attorney General both say it won't impact them. If that comes to pass, they have to go to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit says the same thing.
Judge Walker is a very clever, clever man...sheer brilliance.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
Funniest part of all of this? The judge was also a guy that Reagan wanted to appoint in 1987 but he couldn't get him confirmed because he was TOO CONSERVATIVE.
Sad part is the left he just ruled with, opposed his nomination strongly.
Double edge sword for the right unless they just ignore facts.
This man should be disbarred, tarred, and feathered.
If you want to change the definition of marriage, then do it at the ballot box. The problem is that the pro-gay-marriage folks lost, so they had to take it to court.
The judge had to make up some pre-existing right to same-sex marriage in order to jump through the hoops that he did. It's fricken' insane, I tell you.
I don't have much hope that the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS will reaffirm democratic rule. Crap like this makes me even more predisposed against so-called "gay marriage".
I don't think you should compare "gay marriage" to the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s.
African Americans were denied the right to attend schools that their tax dollars supported. They were not allowed to vote in many parts of the South. In many cities across the U.S. they could not buy homes in neighborhoods that were not designated for blacks. They could not eat at "white" restaurants or stay in major hotels.
To compare that sort of across the board discrimination to the fact that some of us don't think the thousand year definition of marriage should be changed is offensive and diminishes the struggle that African Americans went through to be equal citizens under our Constitution.
I wonder how many other issues there are where President Obama and I are in agreement and most of RFO is in disagreement with the president?
Gay people don't pay taxes? Gay people's tax dollars go to the salaries of those people who give straight people the licenses and certify blood test so straight people can be married. They also pay for the schools that children of straight people attend. So what's your point? AND how does one even spew such a spurious argument for comparative purposes. Blacks also paid for public drinking fountains, what was the state's compelling interest in making us drink out of rust encrusted fountains that were inches away from a nice white porcelain bowl?
I've said it once and I'll say it again, marriage is a legal contract, a CIVIL contract between two people. The church is invited to participate in that CONTRACT by those entering into that agreement for blessing only. The church has NO legal standing in the practice of marriage. Today, marriage in a church is a CUSTOM for people who practice their religion freely under the graces of the U.S. Constitution...despite the fact there are some "religious" people who now seek to deny Muslims from erecting Mosques. I guess that's a made up right too, how dare they want to put a church that's not like MINE here.
And as for going to the courts, where else is an aggrieved party to go when a group of people decide to unleash their hatred and venom on those they dislike (see Muslim reference above)? While it takes a majority to approve laws, they can not make laws that unilateral take away rights bestowed by the constitution. We couldn't put in a state constitution that evangelicals religious practices be banned (well we could but THAT would be against the law) because we don't like its teachings or practices. Dollars to donuts, if that were to happen they'd march right to the courts looking for remedy, PDQ.
The judge didn't make up anything, he said it violated the the 14th amendment, you know those words IN that amendment, for you strict constructionist, that talk about "life, liberty or property" without due process. If the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then the law is upheld. If courts find that the right is a fundamental right (which this judge did) they apply strict scrutiny, a test that inquires whether there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation (California Governor and its Attorney General a Republican and Democrat both say no and refuse to enforce the ban). If you want to blame anyone for the decision, blame the Prop 8 supporters for using arguments like "marriage is for procreation" all of which helped anti-prop 8 supporters. Prop-8 folks failed miserably. Tactics used for a dumb electorate don't work in a court of LAW.
So exactly what "made-up" right did this court pull out of thin air? Judicial activism seems to be relevant only when one disagrees with a decision without regard or FULL understanding of the law. This isn't about how one FEELS it's about what's in the constitution and a group of religious people using their tax-free earned dollars to make public policy based on their religious teachings (someone needs to start checking into that!)...
I feel and have opinions about a lot of stuff I don't like but that doesn't make it RIGHT, it does however show that I can be a selfish, self-centered, narrow minded prick. MY saving grace however, is that I don't try to impose my wants and needs on others and I temper how I feel by keeping my mouth shut, ESPECIALLY when I don't know what I'm talking about. Since when did "some of us" get to decide for the REST OF US?
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
Marriage is a civil contract. You have to get a civil license. A civil servant can perform a legal civil marriage. To my thinking, that makes it a civil rights issue. Period.
As for the religious aspect, let each church decide for themselves, yay or nay...as in separation of church and state.
"If you want to change the definition of marriage, then do it at the ballot box."
And if you want to change the definition of "equal rights under the law," you can do that by tarring and feathering people you disagree with. Looking forward to your appearances with Beck, Palin and Hannity.
Tin-Your post truly breaks my heart. You must have wonderful people in your life who happen to be gay. If you don't think you do, there are likely many around you who have just kept it a secret, knowing your strong feelings. How are gay people less deserving of the rights in our Constitution than "straight" people? Just because some are uncomfortable with the concept, does a minority group not deserve the same right as others to commit their love and lives to one person and call it the same thing we do-marriage? How is a gay couple getting married harmful to you or society? I guess if you can't support it due to your moral superiority, can't you support the economic advantages? Imagine the benefits to the wedding industry! And let's face it-the divorce lawyers, too! With California struggling so much right now, maybe this could bring a major boost. The Prop 8 case proves that there is no evidence to support gay marriage being harmful in any way. It really reminds me of inter-racial marriage laws. Long ago, we kept hearing that inter-racial couples should not marry-imagine how messed up, confused and tormented the kids would be! Well, years after those dreadful laws are gone, we have many happily married inter-racial couples and the children are just fine (well, certainly no less messed up than kids of same-race marriages!) And we have the product of one of those marriages as President of the United States! If I can't convince you, maybe this 86 year old WWII veteran (who happens to be a Republican) can open your mind. Watch the video or read the transcript. Powerful stuff!
"...I’m here because of a conversation I had last June when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me “Do you believe in equal, equality for gay and lesbian people?” I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her, “What do you think our boys fought for on Omaha Beach?” I saw so much blood and guts, so much suffering, much sadness and sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that make America a great nation, one worth dying for. I give talks to 8th grade teachers about WWII and I don’t tell them about the horror. Maybe I should tell them about the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau. I’ve seen with my own eyes the consequences of a caste system, one that makes some people less than others, or second-class. Never Again.
We must have equal right for everyone. It’s what this country was started for. It takes all kinds of people to make the world work. It doesn’t make any sense that some people that love each other can marry and other can’t, just because of who they are. This is what we fought for in WWII; that idea that we can be different and still be equal. My wife and I didn’t raise 4 sons with the idea that three of them would have a certain set of rights but our gay child would be left out. We raised them all to be hardworking, proud, loyal Americans. And they all did good. I think if two adults that love each other and want to get married, they should be able to. Everybody is supposed to be equal and have equality in this country. Let gay people have the right to marry.”
The irony of this issue is that it will be a complete non-issue in 30-40 years as the younger generation has little issue with gay marriage. Their generation just sees it very differently. As usual evolution and progressive thinking creates progress regardless of resistance to it.
"Peace Cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
Albert Einstein
Who are all of these straight people who think that their marriages are threatened or diminished if gay people can get married? I just don't understand the correlation.
If so many hetersexual Republican leaders can get married and divorced numerous times, then that should threaten or diminish heterosexual marriage more than gay marriage. Me no understand.
And when we hear of straight couples getting married, do our brains automatically go to what they will be doing in the bedroom? No. So why do we do that when we think of gay people getting married?
HuffPo reports that same-sex couples may NOT marry until Wednesday, August 18th at the earliest.
Oops! I duplicated a post! Sorry! Suzi, Please remove. Thank you
"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug." -- Mark Knopfler
I certainly hope same-sex marriage can resume immediately. I am anxiously awaiting that 3pm decision.
I love how Newt Gingrich is the spokesperson for the right in denouncing this decision to allow gay marriage in California. Mr. Family Values.
Reaction from Newt Gingrich: "Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society."
Have you seen this story? Newt's ex-wife does not hold back on what a jerk he is. So, on the issue of the sanctity of marriage, we should trust a guy who frequently cheated on his spouses and left 2 of them when they became very ill (cancer for # 1 and MS for # 2.) If he continues to be the face of "anti-gay marriage," gay marriage acceptance will progress just fine.
And how about Glenn Beck telling O'Reilly gay marriage will do us no harm? Pinch me if I'm dreaming! Times are a'changin'...
Judge Walker lifted the stay. Gay marriage will be legal in California as of Aug. 18th.
edited: As of today... there are over 18 thousand gay marriages in CA.
Can you hear me cheering? This is a great day! Link to his ruling. The only thing standing in the way is the 9th Circuit Court. Any predictions there?
A federal judge in California today denied a motion to stay his ruling on Proposition 8, saying he will lift the temporary stay Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. Pacific time.
Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week that Prop 8, which defined marriage in California as heterosexual, is unconstitutional. He issued a temporary stay -- meaning same-sex couples can't get married yet -- and today ruled that his stay will continue until next Wednesday. After that, gay couples will be able to marry in California.
That is, unless the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court which will hear the appeal of Prop 8 supporters, issues its own stay in the meantime.
As in his original ruling, Walker wrote that proponents of Prop 8 just didn't provide enough evidence for their position.
"Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court
denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner," Walker wrote in his ruling.
Walker pointed out that proponents of Prop 8 could not prove that they would suffer any harm if the stay is lifted. They argued that the stay would be harmed but "proponents, of course, are not the state," Walker said.
"Proponents also point to harm resulting from 'a cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse," he wrote.
From ABC News. Former RNC Chairman and political director for George W. Bush, Ken Mehlman, has come out of the closet, and is openly admitting he is gay and he is now advocating for gay marriage. How tough it must have been for him to deal with the anti-gay agenda of the GOP while he was serving and struggling with his own identity, his "secret." So I guess Republicans can be gay, too? Honestly, it is brave men and women like Mehlman who will ultimately move marriage equality forward. The more our family members, neighbors, co-workers, politicians, judges, church leaders, sports heros and entertainment icons "come out" the more we move in the right direction on this issue.
A former chairman of the Republican National Committee and political director for President George W. Bush has told a journalist he is gay.
Ken Mehlman was political director in the White House in 2004, when Republicans and the White House used their position opposing gay marriage to great affect.
Now, Mehlman tells Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic that he will take part in a fundraiser in support of gay marriage in September.
"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," Mehlman told Ambinder. "Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."Mehlman also told Ambinder he wished he had done more to bring the Republican party into the gay community.
"What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn't always heard. I didn't do this in the gay community at all,” he said
What's the saying: We first hate in others what we most dislike about ourselves.
He is right about the journey -- and in Republican politics, time was being gay is/was a deal breaker for the career.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11