Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional
ironclad Send a noteboard - 04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM
(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the voter-approved rule violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy legal fight over California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of two gay couples that want to marry.
The case was watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is likely to wind its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could end in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.
"We are thrilled with today's ruling, which affirms that the protections enshrined in our U.S. Constitution apply to all Americans and that our dream of equality and freedom deserves protection," said Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, shortly after the decision.
Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which if appealed would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Outside a San Francisco courthouse, a small group of same-sex marriage supporters waited for the decision. They waved flags and carried signs that read: "We all deserve the freedom to marry." Rallies were planned for later in the day.
Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests in California over the hotly debated issue of same-sex marriage. It passed with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.
Prior to Wednesday's decision, Rick Jacobs, founder of the Campaign Courage, which supports same-sex marriage, said he was hopeful about the possibility of victory, but prepared for a long legal battle.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Colombia. Civil unions are permitted in New Jersey.
"The significance of the case is earth-shattering," said Jacobs.
----------------
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:
“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.
“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.
“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”
The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy legal fight over California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of two gay couples that want to marry.
The case was watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is likely to wind its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could end in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.
"We are thrilled with today's ruling, which affirms that the protections enshrined in our U.S. Constitution apply to all Americans and that our dream of equality and freedom deserves protection," said Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, shortly after the decision.
Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which if appealed would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Outside a San Francisco courthouse, a small group of same-sex marriage supporters waited for the decision. They waved flags and carried signs that read: "We all deserve the freedom to marry." Rallies were planned for later in the day.
Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests in California over the hotly debated issue of same-sex marriage. It passed with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.
Prior to Wednesday's decision, Rick Jacobs, founder of the Campaign Courage, which supports same-sex marriage, said he was hopeful about the possibility of victory, but prepared for a long legal battle.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Colombia. Civil unions are permitted in New Jersey.
"The significance of the case is earth-shattering," said Jacobs.
----------------
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:
“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.
“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.
“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”
*MySmiley*
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional
04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM
- 1420 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC.
04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM
- 762 Views
So then is that how we do it?
04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM
- 896 Views
Of course.
04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM
- 794 Views
His point was
04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM
- 942 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM*
05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM
- 455 Views
And again...
05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM
- 664 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?"
05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM
- 708 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize.
04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM
- 779 Views

The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA.
04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM
- 875 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA.
05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM
- 653 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate.
05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM
- 794 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general
05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM
- 722 Views
Yes, you still have to abide by the Constitution, even if a lot of people don't like it. *NM*
05/08/2010 12:07:44 AM
- 408 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM*
05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM
- 476 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but....
05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM
- 808 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution.
05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM
- 826 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote...
05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM
- 814 Views
I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular.
05/08/2010 02:17:24 AM
- 845 Views
Re: I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular.
05/08/2010 10:46:54 AM
- 820 Views
I understand it.
05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM
- 812 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8
05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM
- 828 Views
05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM
- 835 Views


But that is just simplistic and silly to complain about when it is a long standing possibility
05/08/2010 03:46:59 PM
- 722 Views
Oh, ees it?
05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM
- 853 Views

Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing
05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM
- 732 Views

Why would you complain if you won?
05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM
- 799 Views

You could recognise that you won by the system working in a way you don't like?
05/08/2010 04:23:58 PM
- 673 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general.
06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM
- 655 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays
06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM
- 686 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here!
06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM
- 606 Views

instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM*
05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM
- 407 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms.
05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM
- 817 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution
05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM
- 801 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected.
05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM
- 857 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended.
05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM
- 768 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing.
05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM
- 846 Views
let's take away the citizenship of all black people if that's the way you think
05/08/2010 09:06:23 PM
- 700 Views
Come now lets not be stupid
06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM
- 665 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant.
06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM
- 786 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant
06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM
- 753 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which.
05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM
- 667 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created
06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM
- 726 Views
Yes, no, no, and no.
06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM
- 773 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here
06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM
- 829 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support.
06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM
- 859 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with
06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM
- 826 Views
...said the pot to the kettle
06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM
- 905 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot
09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM
- 966 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts.
10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM
- 1292 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong.
10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM
- 749 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM*
10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM
- 404 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM*
10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM
- 433 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point
10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM
- 963 Views
There's a simple way to determine the degree to which that opinion is objective or subjective...
06/08/2010 09:32:21 PM
- 694 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM*
05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM
- 392 Views
it may not be a "right"...
05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM
- 700 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace.
05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM
- 781 Views
Hey, I'm single....
05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM
- 703 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it.
05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM
- 765 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well.....
05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM
- 722 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already.
05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM
- 916 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense.
05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM
- 705 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!!
05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM
- 820 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER!
06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM
- 711 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM*
06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM
- 375 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM*
06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM
- 467 Views
People are fed lies all the time
06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM
- 692 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM*
06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM
- 407 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some...
*NM*
06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM
- 664 Views

I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside.
05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM
- 797 Views
Since 1948
06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM
- 913 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM*
06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM
- 370 Views
I don't see any typo...
*NM*
06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM
- 424 Views

I agree
05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM
- 770 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South.
05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM
- 782 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws
05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM
- 731 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it
05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM
- 718 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress
05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM
- 756 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it?
05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM
- 699 Views
I would say that is another case of judicial activism and shows the danger of the practice
05/08/2010 05:43:02 PM
- 672 Views
Hard to believe it's the same governor who said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." *NM*
04/08/2010 11:05:45 PM
- 480 Views
Link to the full court order inside:
04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM
- 911 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing.
04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM
- 771 Views
What page was that on?
05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM
- 689 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere.
05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM
- 796 Views
Oh, that is brilliant.
05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM
- 701 Views
Pretty much.
05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM
- 825 Views
I've always wondered what basis there is for banning necrophilia if "it's disgusting" is invalid.
05/08/2010 01:51:19 PM
- 779 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead?
05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM
- 789 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive?
05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM
- 856 Views
Is it then illegal?
05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM
- 777 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM
- 833 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM
- 883 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then
05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM
- 795 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue!
05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM
- 928 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains
05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM
- 739 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights.
05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM
- 780 Views
Yes, but
06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM
- 732 Views
Absolutely not.
06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM
- 780 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health.
06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM
- 846 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM*
05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM
- 436 Views