Prop 8 Struck Down (For the time being)

[Twilight Wolf]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html

SAN FRANCISCO — Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Enlarge This Image

Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Opponents of Proposition 8 celebrated the ruling outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.
Related

 Read the Decision (pdf)
Enlarge This Image

Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Opponents of Proposition 8 stood alongside proponents outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (17) »
Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban – Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote.

Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, who heard the case without a jury, immediately stayed his decision pending appeals by proponents of Proposition 8, who confidently predicted that higher courts would be less accommodating than Judge Walker. But on Wednesday, at least, the winds seemed to be at the back of those who feel that marriage is not, as the voters of California and many other states feel, solely the province of a man and a woman.

"Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," wrote Mr. Walker. "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Supporters of Proposition 8 said that the decision flew in the face of the people of California.

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said Brian Raum, a senior consel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the defense.

On its face, Wednesday’s decision seemed to apply only to California and not to the dozens of other states that have either constitutional bans or other prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Nor does it impact federal law, which does not recognize such unions.

Still, the very existence of federal court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, set off cheers of "We Won!" from crowds assembled in front of the courthouse in San Francisco. Evening rallies and celebrations were planned dozens of cities across the state and several across the nation.

The plaintiffs’ case was argued by David Boies and Theodore Olson, ideological opposites who once famously sparred in the 2000 Supreme Court battle beween George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount and the presidency. The lawyers brought the case -- Perry v. Schwarzenegger – in May 2009 on behalf of two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

For gay rights advocates, same-sex marriage has increasingly become a central issue in their battle for equality, seen as both an emotional indicator of legitimacy and as a practical way to lessen discrimination.

“Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of a same sex, so denying us equality within the family system is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, who filed two briefs in favor of the plaintiffs. “And we believe that equality in marriage would help reduce discrimination in other settings because the government invites disrespect of us when it denies us equality.”

The trial, which began in January, was closely watched in the gay community, drawing large crowds to courtrooms, and inspiring re-creations by actors which were posted online. The plaintiffs offered two weeks of evidence from experts on marriage, sociology and political science, and emotional testimony from the two couples who had brought the case.

Proponents for Proposition 8, which was heavily backed by the Mormon church and other religious and conservative groups, had offered a much more straightforward defense of the measure, saying that same-sex marriage damages traditional marriage as an institution. They also argued that marriage was essentially created to foster procreation, which same-sex unions could not, and was thus fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.

On Tuesday, those supporting Proposition 8 telegraphed their view that they had likely lost this round as the defense’s leading lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, filed a notice with the court requesting that Judge Walker keep the ban on same-sex marriage in place while they appealed his decision.

The defendants requested a ruling at the same time as Judge Walker issues the opinion, setting the stage for a quick appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "and, if necessary, the Supreme Court."

On Wednesday, lawyers for Ms. Perry responded with a letter of their own, requesting that Judge Walker not automatically rule on such questions without a hearing, asking that they be allowed to respond to the "obviously premature" motion before any action is taken.

The decision could also play into the state’s gubernatorial race in California though the race has been centered largely on economic issues thus far, with unemployment running more than 12 percent and a $19 billion budget gap.

Democrat Jerry Brown has been vocal in his support of gay marriage in his current role as California attorney general. Republican Meg Whitman has taken the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman – in line with the language of Proposition 8 – though she says that she strongly supports the state’s civil union laws, which afford many of the same rights as marriage.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statment said that he supported the ruling, saying it "affirms the full legal protections" for thousands of gay Californians.

There were also signs that Judge Walker’s personal life – several published reports have said he is gay -- might become an issue for those opposed to his ruling. Hours before the decision was announced, a commentator on Fox News.com – Gerard Bradley, a professor of law at University of Notre Dame – posted an editorial questioning the judge’s impartiality.

“I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trail began,” Mr. Bradley wrote.

Some in the gay rights community were initially upset by the case fearing that a loss at a federal level could set back their more measured efforts to gain wider recognition for same-sex marriage, which is legal in five states and the District of Columbia.

But those concerns seemed to fade as the trial began, and on Wednesday, the mood was of elation and cautious optimism that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson’s initial victory might change the debate.

Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that she believed that there were members of Supreme Court who “have a very deep seated bias against LGBT people,” meaning lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender. But, she called Wednesday’s ruling “potentially game changing.”

“This legal victory profoundly changes the conversation,” she said, “for folks in the legal world and the policy world who were previously unmoved by this struggle.”

Well this is going to go to the Supreme Court eventually. The argument about the judge's sexuality seems like a cheap shot, to be honest, when this was a triumph of bipartisanship.

[Bidet to you sir]

Sweet, gonna marry all the dudes now.

But seriously, fuck the guys who say "he's gay so he's biased", when this prop 8 was entirely brought in by the religious lobby, and based on their religious beliefs, not on the laws of the united states or the constitution of california.

[Twilight Wolf]

But seriously, fuck the guys who say "he's gay so he's biased", when this prop 8 was entirely brought in by the religious lobby, and based on their religious beliefs, not on the laws of the united states or the constitution of california.

I believe the guy who said that the judge was biased is a contributor to fox news. So I'm not really surprised

[Bidet to you sir]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38567479

Fucking lol. total to the pro prop 8 witnesses.

Oh rachel, I, like the goon who posted that on somethingawful wish I could gay marry you.

[hisak]

This is cool. Too bad it ruined Adam Baldwin for me forever.

[Bidet to you sir]

wait adam baldwin?

Edit: oh dear god.

I really hoped you were talking about stephen baldwin of the baldwin brothers.

[Witless]

To be honest, I don't even get why the US just doesn't allow gay people to get married everywhere.

[Loki]

To be honest, I don't even get why the US just doesn't allow gay people to get married everywhere.

Because we're plagued by religious zealots who intend to force their views down everyone else's throats because they're convinced that they're better than everyone else. They use their religion to fuel their hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. Despite their religions being based very heavily on the concept of tolerance and acceptance.

[Big Tater]

But seriously, fuck the guys who say "he's gay so he's biased", when this prop 8 was entirely brought in by the religious lobby, and based on their religious beliefs, not on the laws of the united states or the constitution of california.

I believe the guy who said that the judge was biased is a contributor to fox news. So I'm not really surprised

Of course he's biased, he's gay.  Just like how he'd be biased if he were straight.  There's really no objective way to go about this.

[Fleamo]

To be honest, I don't even get why the US just doesn't allow gay people to get married everywhere.

Because we're plagued by religious zealots who intend to force their views down everyone else's throats because they're convinced that they're better than everyone else. They use their religion to fuel their hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. Despite their religions being based very heavily on the concept of tolerance and acceptance.

Also, a majority of people don't want to let gay people get married everywhere. 

[Twilight Wolf]

To be honest, I don't even get why the US just doesn't allow gay people to get married everywhere.

Because we're plagued by religious zealots who intend to force their views down everyone else's throats because they're convinced that they're better than everyone else. They use their religion to fuel their hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. Despite their religions being based very heavily on the concept of tolerance and acceptance.

Also, a majority of people don't want to let gay people get married everywhere. 

A majority of the people can't be trusted to ensure the rights of the minority. I'd point to slavery and the civil rights movement as evidence.

[Bidet to you sir]

To be honest, I don't even get why the US just doesn't allow gay people to get married everywhere.

Because we're plagued by religious zealots who intend to force their views down everyone else's throats because they're convinced that they're better than everyone else. They use their religion to fuel their hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. Despite their religions being based very heavily on the concept of tolerance and acceptance.

Also, a majority of people don't want to let gay people get married everywhere. 

And thats why you have the supreme court and the constitution.
To stop a tyranny of the majority.

[Witless]

To be honest, I don't even get why the US just doesn't allow gay people to get married everywhere.

Because we're plagued by religious zealots who intend to force their views down everyone else's throats because they're convinced that they're better than everyone else. They use their religion to fuel their hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. Despite their religions being based very heavily on the concept of tolerance and acceptance.

Also, a majority of people don't want to let gay people get married everywhere. 

What is really the problem of two men or two women getting married? They're still human, aren't breaking any laws. Let them be happy because really, it's just marriage.

[Bidet to you sir]

Because Americans link marriage with Jesus, and American Jesus is allowed to dictate public policy.

[Beh]

Of course he's biased, he's gay.  Just like how he'd be biased if he were straight.  There's really no objective way to go about this.

Is a judge biased against a criminal because the judge isn't a criminal? Or are judges put in their position because they have the ability to judge a situation without putting their own morals into it?

[Bidet to you sir]

Both the "he's biased" argument is silly and the "a straight guy would be just as biased" misses the point entirely.
Everyone has personal biases, that doesn't even matter though, it matters if the judges verdict was based on evidence and facts.
Which they were.

The pro prop 8 side was entirely due to religious beliefs and frankly a "BUT THEY'RE FAGS!!!!" argument when you look at the case.
It had no basis in legal precedent, procedure or the constitution.
Hence why it was overturned.

[Big Tater]

The second one, beh

[Beh]

The second one, beh

Then why would the judge be biased in this situation, but not in others? Is he also biased against black people? (I don't know his race, I'm assuming white though.) Is he biased against women? If not, why is he then biased for gays?

[Big Tater]

Because he's gay, I don't know. Stop asking me so many questions! :O

[Beh]

Because he's gay, I don't know. Stop asking me so many questions! :O

I'll assume that's your way of saying he's not biased. =/