Update: Federal Judge Who Overturned California's Prop. 8 Confirms He's Gay

[JamesG]

Proposition 8: federal judge overturns California gay marriage ban
By Daniel B. Wood, Staff Writer
August 4, 2010


Los Angeles- A US district judge in San Francisco on Wednesday overturned California's Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved ban on gay marriage.



The ruling, which will certainly be appealed, follows a closely watched trial on the constitutionality of the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage that many expect will eventually be decided in the US Supreme Court.

A decision there would result in a landmark ruling on one of the most contentious social issues of our time.






Lawyers who defended Proposition 8 have already filed a request with the court to keep the state's gay marriage ban in place until an appeal can be heard.

The case challenging the proposition, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was brought by two unmarried gay couples who argued the ban violated their right to due process under the law and the Constitution’s equal protection clause.



Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed.

"The evidence shows that Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution, the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples,” Judge Walker wrote in his 130-page decision.

“Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because Prop. 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes the Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.”









Response on both sides has been swift and vocal.

“This is a game changer,” says Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “The judge really got it right on every single point."



"This decision affirms that in America, we don't treat people differently because of their sexual orientation," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, in a statement. "We rejoice at today's decision but there's a long road ahead toward establishing true marriage equality for same-sex couples."









But opponents of same-sex marriage hold the opposite view.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Brian Raum, who represents the official proponents of Proposition 8, in a statement.

“Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process."






“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Mr. Raum said.

“Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.







Legal experts say Wednesday's decision is significant because it is the first time a federal court has passed judgment on the issue of same-sex marriage. State courts in such places as Massachusetts, California, and New York have come down on both sides of the issue.




“This is quite historic because it has been felt that the proponents of gay marriage had been avoiding federal courts under the premise that a ruling there would be more final than in state court,” says Herma Hill Kay, professor of law at University of California's Berkeley School of Law.






Professor Kay says Judge Walker’s opinion is “particularly strong” and his analysis of the US Constitution’s equal protection clause is “quite compelling.”




Still, legal analysts see a lengthy legal path ahead before the case is settled for good – most likely in the US Supreme Court.

“While this is a big victory for opponents of Proposition 8, it is hardly the final word on whether banning gay marriage is constitutional,” says Jessica Levinson, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.




“It will likely be two to three years before the United States Supreme Court determines whether marriage is a fundamental right such that no one, regardless of their sexual orientation, can be denied that right," she says.










Because of the uncertainty hanging over the legal fate of Proposition 8, gay marriage supporters say they are not turning away from trying to overturn the measure at the ballot box in 2012.

“This is an awkward position in that we all expect the courts to protect minority groups and generally they do a pretty good job,” says Tom Watson, current board chair of Love, Honor, Cherish, a group formed in May 2008 dedicated solely to the repeal of Prop 8.

“But in this case, that outcome is not assured in the US Supreme Court so we are going to work against being over confident.”






A California Field Poll released July 20 shows California voters support legalizing same-sex marriage 51-42 percent. And a Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll shows support for gay marriages rose from 44 percent to 50 percent over the past 15 months.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...y-marriage-ban

[Karen*]

This is a great day for America.

(Chris Pine is me, lady on the left=naysayers)

[broadmoor]

Not a surprise, as the California judge himself is gay.

[Dr. John Becker]

So a federal judge is overruling the will of the people?

[benjamoon]

It's unfortunate that a judge can just overrule the will of the people. Imagine if it was the other way around...

[Tweety]

I'm surprised that Obama (who is against gay marriage) hasn't said that the judge acted stupidly.

But stuff like this will only seal the Democrats' fate in November. The American people are sick and tired of their will constantly being thwarted by a handful of elitists.

This also proves that liberals' ideas can not win at the ballot box. The left always has to find some judge to overturn the will of the voters. Gay marriage has never been the will of the people in any state. It's never been approved at the ballot box, only by individual judges or an occasional panel of judges.

[Karen*]

That proposition of EPIC FAIL shouldn't have been put on the ballot in the first place anyway. It's pretty sad that people feel the need to dictate the union of two people they most likely don't even know because of their religious and moral convictions. I'd say that's pretty elitist too. Don't like gay marriage? You don't have to get one.

[Dr. John Becker]

Gay Marriage isn't marriage. Never will be. A liberal judge can rule that 2+2=5, but it isn't going to change the fact that it's wrong.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by Karen*

That proposition of EPIC FAIL shouldn't have been put on the ballot in the first place anyway...

You're right... I mean, why leave it up to the people?

Originally Posted by Karen*

...It's pretty sad that people feel the need to dictate the union of two people they most likely don't even know because of their religious and moral convictions. I'd say that's pretty elitist too. Don't like gay marriage? You don't have to get one.

Gays have the exact same rights as I do when it comes to marriage. They don't want to be treated equally, they want special treatment.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Dr. John Becker

So a federal judge is overruling the will of the people?

Yep, I may as well not vote for any propositions since several have been overturned (prop. 187 is another example).

[Tweety]

The gay community and supporters of the judge's ruling whine about how same-sex marriage is all about 2 gays having the same rights as a married couple.

But California's laws on "Civil Unions" do exactly that. There, civil union couples have the same legal rights as married couples.

But of course, this isn't enough... because it's not about "rights" at all. It's about destroying the definition of marriage. It is that which is the ultimate goal here.

Dang, doesn't seem that long ago when gays and gay couples simply said "leave us alone, don't bother us". Well, we left 'em alone, we didn't bother them. And now they're back wanting special rights bestowed upon them.

[bossradio93]

Originally Posted by Dr. John Becker

Gay Marriage isn't marriage. Never will be. A liberal judge can rule that 2+2=5, but it isn't going to change the fact that it's wrong.

A generation or two ago, the people said interracial marriage wasn't marriage and never will be. The United States Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage laws in 16 remaining states that had them on the books and the laws were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. I know few people get uncomfortable still at seeing one race dating/marrying another. But it will change the fact that it is wrong to discriminate and let two people marry and unite as one regardless of who is with.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by bossradio93

A generation or two ago, the people said interracial marriage wasn't marriage and never will be. The United States Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage laws in 16 remaining states that had them on the books and the laws were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. I know few people get uncomfortable still at seeing one race dating/marrying another. But it will change the fact that it is wrong to discriminate and let two people marry and unite as one regardless of who is with.

Inter-racial marriage does not change the definition of what marriage is. Gay marriage does change that definition. You can't compare discrimination based on skin color to so-called "discrimination" based on behavior.

In all 50 states, everyone has the exact same rights when it comes to marriage. There's no discrimination going on. This is simply a case of a gay judge saying "eff you, you're nothing but a bunch of bigoted homophobes" to 7 million people, and saying the only reason for marriage is because "society" has been homophobic for thousands of years.

Plus, as I said before...this isn't about "rights" or "discrimination". This is about liberals imposing THEIR views on the rest of society. Civil unions are basically the legal equivalent of marriage in terms of the "benefits" that gays are always complaining about missing; yet, even when Civil Unions are legal and they have all these "rights" and "benefits", it's still not enough for them.

This judge basically declared all out war.

[Brieannas21]

Sadly, I do not think that this will stick. Some how I think that will go back into effect just like it did months ago. I do not see what the big deal is, if two consenting adults want to marry each other, they should be allowed, no matter the sex. It is not my marriage, it does not affect my marriage at all.

[adultescent]

Originally Posted by Tweety

Civil unions are basically the legal equivalent of marriage in terms of the "benefits" that gays are always complaining about missing; yet, even when Civil Unions are legal and they have all these "rights" and "benefits", it's still not enough for them.

Saying "will you marry me?" probably sounds better than "will you civil union me?"… although both sound as equally bad to me :| lol… Love and sexuality aren't the same thing, and I associate marriage with the former, so I completely understand why some gay people fight for their personal right to "marriage", and aren't happy with only a legal right to a "civil union"…