Judge strikes down Proposition 8, allowing gay marriage in California

[vector7]

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated]

August 4, 2010 | 1:48 pm



A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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 Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

[Updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.

“This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, minutes after Walker’s ruling was released. “From the start, this has been about basic fairness.”

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Prop 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

[vector7]

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

February 07, 2010|By Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross

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.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.

They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians...

[vector7]

Was listening to Savage yesterday on the way home about this subject...


Here's the broadcast.

[vector7]

Just in time for the Kagan nomination...

What’s next for the Prop. 8 case?

Wed Aug 4, 7:19 pm ET
By Liz Goodwin

By Liz Goodwin liz Goodwin – Wed Aug 4, 7:19 pm ET

Now that a San Francisco federal judge has overturned California's voter-approved gay marriage ban, supporters of same-sex marriage have hailed the decision as a "grand slam." But it's not quite a game-changer — the ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker, which declared that the ballot initiative outlawing gay unions in the Golden State violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, sets the stage for a likely Supreme Court challenge to determine the authority of the state to ban same-sex marriage.

Walker's decision marks the first federal test of a state law outlawing gay marriage. Gay-marriage opponents had earlier sought a stay on Walker's ruling, so as to prevent a decision against them from unleashing a wave of gay marriages in the state before they could mount an appeal. Prop. 8 backers say they plan to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The language of Walker's decision is sweeping — which makes a Supreme Court challenge more likely than if he had elected to decide the case on narrower points of law. "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote. He also blasted the defense's star witness and says Prop. 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." (You can read the full decision here.)If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were to overturn Walker's decision, the Supreme Court may be less likely to rule on the case. In practical terms, that outcome seems unlikely, though — the 9th Circuit has long had the reputation of being the nation's liberal appellate district, with Rush Limbaugh routinely blasting it as the "Ninth Circus" for past rulings such as the 2002 finding that schools can't compel students to recite the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance. (The court recently reversed that ruling.)

Still, if the case eventually reaches the Supreme Court, conventional wisdom is that the conservative-leaning Roberts Court would not uphold a gay-marriage right, USC law professor David Cruz told a California public radio station this morning.

University of California constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky tells The Upshot that a U.S. district court's decision in Massachusetts to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act could actually reach the Supreme Court faster than the Prop. 8 case. "I think ultimately the Supreme Court has to rule on this issue," he said.

A spokesman for the Equal Rights Foundation, a nonprofit that funded the challenge to Prop. 8, tells The Upshot that one of the main effects of the case has been to change public perception of gay marriage.

"One of the most important things about this case is that it's laid all the facts on the table," spokesman Yusef Robb said. "Both sides were given equal opportunity to present evidence and present testimony. As opposed to the political arena where spin and bumper stickers and misleading TV ads is what influences people, in a court of law the facts influence people."

Meanwhile, the pro-Prop. 8 forces are gearing up for their appeal. "We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, given the biased way he conducted this trial," Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, told a local paper.

"With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."

Vaughn issued a temporary stay on his ruling, so gay couples in California cannot get married yet, despite some confusion after the ruling was announced at the county clerks' offices.

Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly writes that the most important parts of the decision are Walker's "findings of fact," because his legal decisions will be considered anew when the case reaches the 9th circuit. He lists the facts here.