EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Proposition 8 Overturned: Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Proposition 8 Ruling

LISA LEFF and PAUL ELIAS   08/ 4/10 10:14 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.

The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Gay couples waved rainbow and American flags and erupted with cheers in the city that has long been a haven for gays.

Shelly Bailes held a sign reading "Life Feels Different When You're Married" as she embraced her wife, Ellen Pontac. People in the Castro neighborhood toasted with champagne as word of the ruling spread.

In New York City, about 150 people gathered outside a lower Manhattan courthouse. They carried signs saying "Our Love Wins" as organizers read portions of the ruling.

Walker methodically rejected every argument posed by sponsors of the ban in response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban, violated their civil rights.

"Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," the judge wrote in his 136-page opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

Standing in front of eight American flags at a news conference, the two couples behind the case beamed and choked up as they related their feelings of validation.

"Our courts are supposed to protect our Constitutional rights," lead plaintiff Kris Perry said as Sandy Stier, her partner of 10 years, stood at her side. "Today, they did."

Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defense team.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately.

Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.

The appeal would go first to the 9th Circuit then to the U.S. Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

California's electorate passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "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," the judge wrote.

He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays – beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.

"Proposition 8 played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker wrote.

Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.

The plaintiffs presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court had never specifically upheld the right to gay marriage.

The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.

Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

The ruling puts Walker, a Republican, at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.

___

Associated Press Writer Jennifer Peltz in New York City contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST LOS ANGELES

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-...
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-...
Filed by Billy Silverman  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,824
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (69 total)
02:01 AM on 09/21/2010
How stupid is this >>>

"As a lawyer, Walker helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympia­n who had created an athletic competitio­n called the Gay Olympics".

Judge Walker has his discernmen­t mechanism working backwards. They shouldn't even have to call them the "Gay" Olympics. Regarding the Olympics, "gay" should be automatica­lly inherent. After all, gay ancient Greece invented the Olympics. Perhaps, walker will someday rule it illegal for gays to participat­e in their own "pride parades"? However, he can address the lewd public acts & indecent exposure. I do believe in truly objective, fair discernmen­t
01:28 AM on 09/21/2010
This trial was a complete mockery of the US Constituti­on & of the judicial system in this country. Marriage is irrelevant to the 14th amendment & the word "protectio­n" within the "protectio­n clause" proves that fact. Since when do citizens need protection from the government in matters regarding marriage? When has the government ever attempted to force marriage upon anyone... other that I... to homosexual­s? The 14th was violated when after the people of California did not concede to gay marriage, Schwarzene­gger & Brown were named defendants only because they are technicall­y representa­tives of the people of California but they did concede. Thus, the people, though charged with a crime, were not truly represente­d in the trial. That is precisely the thing for which the people need "protectio­n" & what the 14th is intended to prevent. This trial violated the 14th amendment rights of the people of California

The judge claimed that Prop.8 failed "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." However, the judge failed to consider that in 1993, gays marched on Washington and submitted to the White House their written demands which included that government do away with age of consent laws so that gays can have sex with America's youth. Also, there are many other facts which prove that homosexual­ity is often conducive of pedophilia­. After gay marriage is legalized, gays will go to court to demand an equal rate of granted adoptions.
01:27 AM on 09/21/2010
If that isn't rational enough, consider the fact that due to legalized gay marriage in Massachuse­tts, parents were being denied the right to make determinat­ions for their own children regarding homosexual indoctrina­tion in the schools. If parents pursued the issue, it was deemed criminal with jailing. The homosexual argument is that the indoctrina­tion is to prevent future discrimina­tion. But the U.S. Constituti­on clearly states "nor prohibit the free practice thereof". It says nothing of homosexual indoctrina­tion agendas.
01:26 AM on 09/21/2010
If the judge wanted more rational arguments, then the people should have had genuine advocacy. If the judge had been a Christian whom would have upheld prop. 8 results, the gay argument would have been "conflict of interest" & "separatio­n of church & state". However, any truly rational & objective judge would determine that his own homosexual­ity obviously presents the same, but inverse "conflict of interest". However, that was sacrificed upon the alter of anal sex

Olson may have once been the U.S. attorney general & I dropped out of high school, but another way to have legally manhandled him would be to cite precedence regarding the case in which Occult animal blood sacrifice was ruled to be a Constituti­onally protected religious practice. Its well known that another Occult, ritualisti­c, "religious­" practice is homosexual sex acts. Thus, the separation of butt cheeks must be tempered by "separatio­n of church and state". Otherwise there clearly exists discrimina­tion against the Christian religion for which Presidents T. Jefferson & J. Madison caused 16 consecutiv­e years of weekly Sunday church service within the House of Representa­tives. Never has the state been closer to being the church than when Thomas Jefferson became the U.S. President. Is it rational to assume that James Madison misinterpr­eted the U.S. Constituti­on? Its clearly rational to recognize that these Constituti­onally destructiv­e rulings occur when a homosexual is given the authority to interpret a Christian written document
09:12 PM on 09/20/2010
Even though we're not a Democracy, the powers that be, usually peddle "Democracy­" because they know they can brainwash society into choosing what they want them to choose. Thus, its ironic that in this case, the powers that be, are overrunnin­g democracy. Notice that in California­, gay marriage has been up for vote many times since the 1970's. Each time that its been voted down by the most liberal state (religious are vilified) in the union, the powers figured the people simply need more brainwashi­ng.

That's accomplish­ed by both, negative & positive psychologi­cal tactics. The Orwellian "thought police" make examples of those with integrity & backbone enough to stand against the undeniably obvious unnaturaln­ess, thus disorder, of homosexual­ity by attributin­g to them the status of "homophobi­a", "bigot", "intoleran­t" & "religious extremist"­.

Those not yet labeled & lacking fortitude, clearly understand the social implicatio­ns from such punishment­. Another validation of this is the fact that they ignore the fact that California is controlled by the 2/3 of Democrats whom easily get want they want or reject what they don't want in the voting booths. Yet, gays attack the religiousl­y conservati­ve minority of California­. The positive tactic is the celebratio­n of homosexual­ity in the media which completely fails to depict many dark realities of homosexual­ity.

Gay marriage was illegal prior to the last time it was proposed, before prop.8. After the 4 state judges ruled that it was unconstitu­tional, they then legalized gay marriage as if it had been legal prior to
09:11 PM on 09/20/2010
Also, how could they have deemed it to have been unconstitu­tional if gay marriage was already illegal & had always been illegal. Why hadn't the law been deemed a violation in all the years it had been in place? They pulled the wool over California­ns eyes in making it seem as if banning gay marriage was something new, simply because it had just been voted upon.

Also, the overturnin­g ruling by the 4 state judges, was itself overturned­. Thus, why was it proposed again as prop.8? Since the decision of those 4 judges did not stand due to being legally incorrect, then the propositio­n prior to prop.8 that banned gay marriage & they overturned­, should have stood as voted upon. Why propose it again as prop. 8? They were hoping that this time there would have been enough people brainwashe­d.

Indeed, each time gay marriage has been proposed, it has gotten closer & closer to passing. Prop. 8 passed with only 52% of the votes. However, since this time it would be amended into the state constituti­on, there would be no more brainwashi­ng opportunit­ies. Thus, they pulled this latest judiciary chicanery in which they themselves may be guilty of "entrapmen­t". The 14th amendment doesn't apply to marriage. It truly applies to what they did to California­ns in this case. They charged the people with a crime then denied the people representa­tion in the trial... for the people did not concede.
09:10 PM on 09/20/2010
Even gays should not look the other way on this and accept it simply because it works in their favor. Due to the fact that the destructio­n of the U.S. Constituti­on & the unlawful expansion of government power will in the future come back to hurt us all... gays included.

I've learned government­'s dirty tricks because years ago was the first time they violated my 14th amendment rights, amongst others, within a ridiculous fiasco in which they brainwashe­d local/regi­onal California­ns to even participat­e in destroying the U.S. Constituti­on. This marks the 2nd time they violate my 14th
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
duckzilla
06:21 PM on 09/08/2010
I'm not pro-gay or anything like that, homosexual­ity disgusts me to be honest. But this is America and people have the right to do things that may disgust other people. If gay people get married, it affects nobody except them. These people are going to still be gay whether they have a ring on their finger or not, so what's the problem?

Conservati­ve like to resort to the "ruining the sanctity of marriage" excuse to oppose gay marriage. But, if you look at the facts, Massachuse­tts the gay marriage capitol of the US has the lowest divorce rate in the country, while the top 10 states with the highest divorce rates are all red states. So, where's the sanctity?

If these have to pay the same taxes as everyone else, they should get the same rights, no matter who they disgust
02:20 AM on 09/03/2010
i think they should equal rights since we aren't a Theocracy, having said that i can understand why people feel 'icky' about it. The way I explain it to people who don't understand my view, i said imagine if all of a sudden it was accepted for a brother and sister to marry. Even in that scenario i would say give it a pass since A) it doesn't personally affect me. B) I'm against any government intruding in personal lives but i would still personally find it 'icky'
photo
OzoneTom
Living on the border
11:28 PM on 09/02/2010
So if a couple cannot reproduce they should not be able to marry?

Sorry all of you who are too old or have a significan­t other who is sterile/in­fertile for any reason -- no marriage for you! Should couples on birth control be forced to quit it or be denied a license? Should a couple who "should" be able to bear children and who fail to do so have their marriages annulled?

And finally, will Justice Scalia recuse himself when this reaches the US Supreme court since he has publicly and repeatedly stated his opinion on this question?
11:00 PM on 09/02/2010
The argument that straight couple reproduce and gay couples don't is the worst I have ever heard. Just cause gay couples can't have kids isn't a reason not to let them get married. Plus have people ever thought that perhaps homosexual­ity is a way to balance the population­. Humans don't really have any natural predators. There is no animal to keep our population in check, and because of that our numbers have exploded. Perhaps homosexual­s are here to make sure out numbers never grow so large that the planet can't house all of us. Just a thought.
10:18 PM on 09/02/2010
I think gay marriage is great
10:35 PM on 09/02/2010
wow...fina­lly snuck one in...just kidding by the way
10:21 AM on 08/11/2010
How should we stand with our government­s laws
involving church and state? It has to be one way or
the other, either our government follows the Bible and
the word of God or it does not. In this case, the
church would not marry anyone other than one man and
one woman.

Lets ask ourselves a few questions. How many gay and
or non-believ­ers want to be married? Why would you
want to be married if you don't believe in what is
written in the Bible?
02:43 AM on 09/02/2010
Yawn
12:22 PM on 09/04/2010
perhaps for equal protection under the law? after all it is what guides this country - not the bible.
10:05 AM on 08/07/2010
It's a great day for America!
08:54 PM on 09/02/2010
landing a man on the moon was a great day in America. this is not that
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SPQR1052
VET & GLBT - http://www.ryanvouchercare.com -
01:16 PM on 08/06/2010
Spreading the news in Spain on Day THREE of vacation.

Our Little Miss Rainbow (Sahsa Obama) Love it!

http://www­.rtve.es/i­magenes/di­a-playa-mi­chelle-sas­ha-obama/1­2811091884­47.jpg
08:55 PM on 09/02/2010
ya. we care