Prop 8 Ruling: Read The FULL TEXT

SAN FRANCISCO (Associated Press) -- A person close to the case says a federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

Comments

[spiegelp]

11:43 AM on 08/13/2010

Protect marriage?

http://www.youtube.com/user/MockTheDummy1?feature=mhw5#p/u/9/ASsJQY5jgmk

[LizardLips]

01:25 PM on 08/05/2010

Censors are at it again. Wassamatta, a little free speech is good.

[hoobit]

12:02 PM on 08/05/2010

Wow! With this ruling, the world has *not* stopped spinning? I'm amazed!

Wow! With this ruling, *my* [hetero] marriage is *still* Valid? I'm stunned!

Wow! With this ruling, *still* No religious group/sect/house of worship/etc. will be Forced to marry same-sex couples? I'm flabbergasted!

Wow! With this ruling, the *state* Still issues licenses to marry and the *religion* Still Decides IF it will perform the ceremony, or *not*? I'm incredulous!

Wow! With this ruling, once again!, it is affirmed that *OUR* Constitution *still* trumps ALL! I'm truly and wonderously ecstatic!

Oh, how I Love!, Love!, Love!, *OUR* Constitution!

[Lukester]

11:30 AM on 08/05/2010

There is something to be said about the American system which recently beat back the evil forces of prejudice and ignorance:

In California – the triumph of equal rights. (Prop 8 overturned)

In Arizona – The defeat of racism. (SB 1070 gutted)

In New York – The separation of church and State upheld. (The Mosque in Lower Manhattan allowed to be built.)

[jstreet]

10:19 PM on 08/05/2010

Good, positive comment. We can only hope that these rulings and opinions prevail.

[Janetshusb]

11:54 PM on 08/05/2010

Unfortunately: the ACLJ has a suit ready to go against the community center/mosque. The Sanctity of Marriage group has already appealed the Prop * decision and anti immigrant feelings are hearty and healthy in AZ. .............. but till hoping the goodness of human nature will win out in the end.

[Snarkyone]

10:39 AM on 08/05/2010

Lets take a minute to look at the larger picture here. Come November, Californians will be voting on legalizing cannabis for everyone as well. Imagine the Conservative Republicans heads exploding at the very idea of homosexuals not only being allowed to marry but to have an open pot bar at the reception. I can see them obsessing over weed fueled homosexual activity.... I love it.

[MollyCat]

12:43 PM on 08/05/2010

Hahaha!! Me, too. I sure hope I get invited to someone's same-sex wedding. I'm there! F&F

[kittyarmy]

07:34 PM on 08/05/2010

Sounds like an awesome party, actually...

[Tom Joad]

10:21 AM on 08/05/2010

I just read the full conclusion of the court. Outstanding. I hope this conclusion will become the precedent for all other cases. There is no rational basis for states to view marriage differently for opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

Thank you, Judge Walker, for your clarity.

[Joemmm]

10:09 AM on 08/05/2010

I am disturb by the Judge's opinion that "Moral disapproval alone ....". There is hardly any law that can stand up to that argument. That includes laws on drugs, prostitution, ... All laws are based on taboos and mores of the society. That is why we with different taboos and mores are disgusted sometime of the laws in other countries that has a different set and they in turn are disgusted by ours.

I am all for people to be able to be married and enter into a civil union. Unfortunately the word marriage and its concept has gathered up a whole list of civil contracts that goes with it. We have the "marriage" tax, the "marriage" right to see patients and such. It would be good if people can enter into these civeil contracts between themselves and between them and the state.

But I don't like the Judge's reasoning in that one line. I think its implication if let stand is immense beyond this case.

[KenKo]

03:30 PM on 08/05/2010

This is why rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Someone's rights are not subject to your or other people's likes and dislikes, and the burden of proof is on those who would restrict them without a rational basis. Moral disapproval alone would have prevented voting rights for women, inter racial marriages, even swimming wear! In short, someone else's marriage is none of YOUR business if you are not directly impacted by it. Vive la liberté!

[talkstocoyotes]

12:28 PM on 09/01/2010

I am disturb by the Judge's opinion that "Moral disapproval alone ....". There is hardly any law that can stand up to that argument. That includes laws on drugs, prostitution, ... All laws are based on taboos and mores of the society. That is why we with different taboos and mores are disgusted sometime of the laws in other countries that has a different set and they in turn are disgusted by ours."

One of the points that Judge Walker emphasized was that a law cannot be based on moral disapproval alone -- it has to have some positive benefit for society and/or protect from harm. And not everyone would agree that two men or two women wanting to tie the knot is in the same ballpark as drugs or prostitution. If people other countries, especially those governed by what they consider the "law" of the Almighty, find that offensive, they're welcome to not visit or move here.

[gray375]

10:05 AM on 08/05/2010

my head just exploded all over my office! Fauxed-up news poll shows 2/3 agreeing with the decision. The end is neigh!

[morgantown]

10:05 AM on 08/05/2010

Why is it that republicans, tea-partiers, the religious right and other extremists don't want the government telling them what to do, but they don't have a problem telling democrats and other liberal (free thinkers) what to do and harrass the goverment to make it clear to those of us who fall into the latter categories that our progressive tolerant behaviour will not be tolerated??!!

[LazloTu]

09:59 AM on 08/05/2010

Shame that supporters of the ban have their only arguement based upon personal moral conviction; never mind the constitutional RIGHTS of All individuals.

I fear that the SCOTUS will somehow have a majority ruling, somehow supporting their personal moral compass.

[ImNotLegal]

09:45 AM on 08/05/2010

Great ruling. Very well though and leaves no room for intelligent opposition. Congrats Judge Walker!

[MollyCat]

12:12 PM on 08/05/2010

Not that there WAS intelligent opposition.

[talkstocoyotes]

12:29 PM on 09/01/2010

There was barely even a defense, though we'd do well to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. People are quite capable of believing non-defenses when they're looking for validation of prejudices or blind tradition-worship.

[aspertame2]

09:44 AM on 08/05/2010

I love the whole dialogue going on now regarding the constitutional principal that you don't accord equal rights by public acclaim. Each generation looks back and says "how could 'they' have been so foolish and ignorant" - on issues like women's rights, slavery, indentured servitude, child labor...we are all very wise when it comes to diagnosing the ills of the past. But we can't hope to guess all the issues our grandkids will look with "why would they *do* that?" wonderment.

The constitutionally protected right to marry has been hard fought, but in context today is a ***relatively*** easy fight, as the gay community is well organized and not as economically disadvantaged as many minorities who have had to fight for basic rights. As gratifying as it is to watch bigoted heads exploding today, there remains so much human injustice barely challenged as regards social/economic justice, privacy rights, people dying from lack of basic affordable healthcare...

The story of Prop 8 will be rounding out just one small chapter in some future history book chronicling the civil injustices and oppression movements of *our* times. I'll continue to enjoy watching the victory laps, but am sobered by the bigger battles faced by those who are prevented from advocating from their own interests, or who are frightened or deceived into silence or complicity with power.

[cintirich]

09:42 AM on 08/05/2010

Just putting this out there but this is the same just that ruled against supporters of prop 8 during the campaign and his decisions were overturned both times. He also happens to be a homosexual. That's not a slam or anything, it's just stating a fact.

Justice Vaughn hardly seems like he was unbiased in this matter and I wouldn't be surprised if he were overturned a 3rd time.

[calindi]

02:17 PM on 08/05/2010

Oh. I agree. Gays shouldn't be allowed to participate in this particular discussion.
Since straight people are impacted they should recuse themselves as well....

[KenKo]

03:32 PM on 08/05/2010

LOL! Cute...

[talkstocoyotes]

12:30 PM on 09/01/2010

Absolutely. And who wants women weighing in on women's rights?

[kittyarmy]

07:42 PM on 08/05/2010

You suggest the judge is biased in favor of gay marriage because he is a homosexual. Would you assume he would be against gay marriage If he was a heterosexual? And if he had been a heterosexual and he rendered the same decision would it make it easier for you to accept his decision?

[tulane-grad]

09:34 AM on 08/05/2010

The more I think about this decision, the more angered I become. However, its not for the reasons most here believe. Let me make this clear; I AGREE with the judges ruling. In fact, it was a no brainer.

So what is pushing my buttons? I'm sick of seeing those with (Minute-Comprehension Disorder) regurgitate distorted facts. Lets make this simple:

1) California is a BLUE state (Arnold doesn't count)
2) How did Prop 8 make it to the ballot (see 1)
3) Should 8 have made it to the ballot (see 1)
4) What voting blocks passed 8 (see 1)
5) Which current president stated, "I don't support gay marriage"

Considereing the hypocrisy is running deep, do you see where this is going? If not, please note that not all conservative-minded people are (place r@cist / n@zi comparisons here). In other words, CONGRATS to my G&L friends, including the ones that can't stand activists judges - LOL.

So for those who believe this decision will fall before the SCOTUS - guess again. Kennedy's voting record clearly favors individual rights. These include the 2A kind so many of you want taken away.

Now get busy picking out those tuxedos & dresses.

[MCWAY]

03:22 PM on 08/05/2010

1) We know that.
2) The people got 649,000 signatures from registered voters and submitted them to the ballot.
3) Yes. The CA Supreme Court AND the state Attorney General scrubbed Prop. 8 and deemed it kosher, before the CA court ruled that the old law (Prop. 22) went against the state constitution.
4) Latinos and Blacks, the latter by 70% according to CNN and several other sources.
5) He doesn't support it...ACTIVELY. But, he's more than willing to stand by and not defend laws that state marriage is between a man and a woman.

You're assuming the 9th Circuit Court will side with Walker. While I think that's likely, that ain't etched in stone. As I've said, we've seen this story before in Nebraska. A federal judge rules its marriage amendment is federally unconstitutional, only to have the 8th Circuit Court strike down that ruling and restore the amendment.

As for the Supreme Court, it did NOT do anything to reverse the 8th Circuit Court's ruling on the Nebraska marriage amendment. So, it's reasonable to say it would rule in favor of Prop. 8 (assuming again that the 9th does not and sides with Walker).

Plus, you're assuming that Sotomayor on the US Supreme Court will side against Prop. 8, if it gets that far. Maybe...maybe not. It may go 5-4 with SOTOMAYOR, not Kennedy, being the tie-breaker. Or it could go 6-3 with BOTH siding in favor of Prop. 8.

[mozondown]

05:06 PM on 08/05/2010

"4) Latinos and Blacks, the latter by 70% according to CNN and several other sources"

That 70% figure was found to be incorrect. Voting for Prop 8 was correlated with one's level of religiosity rather than race.

“New study shows party, ideology, frequency of religious service attendance and age drove vote on Prop. 8”
http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr_1_06_09”

[talkstocoyotes]

12:33 PM on 09/01/2010

"5) He doesn't support it...ACTIVELY. But, he's more than willing to stand by and not defend laws that state marriage is between a man and a woman.
"

Nice fantasy; but the "fierce advocate" did say recently that he was against same-sex marriage. He stated that in 2008 in an interview, stipulating that the word "marriage" had a "spiritual" dimension.

Which should tell people everything they need to know what Obama thinks about same-sex relationships; but in 2008 people who should have known better were not only willing but eager to overlook his remarks.

[dkoch65]

09:33 AM on 08/05/2010

That comment by the judge says it all about the religious right assault on personal freedoms. "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights...". The judge plugs in "to gay men and lesbians" but it goes so much deeper than that in regards to the religious right imposing their moral will on abortion, prostitution, end of life options, contraception, stem cell research, etc. Until we release ourselves from that bond we will forever be stuck in the middle ages in regard to progression of the world. Especially the notion that "god" is watching over us and would not let anything happen to us. This equates to many things including the denying climate issues and really caring about what occurs here on planet earth outside of what the bible tells them.

[lisalulu]

09:47 AM on 08/05/2010

Fanned. So true: the decision is an expansion against the moralist - it when affirmed - continues in the tradition of separation of church and state; privacy and believe in equal protection - all American values!

[talkstocoyotes]

12:35 PM on 09/01/2010

Which is why Judge Walker has been the target of so much vitriol from the Right. People need to read the whole decision rather than relying on sound bytes and catchphrases.