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
1467 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC.
- 04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM
797 Views
So then is that how we do it?
- 04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM
936 Views
Of course.
- 04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM
829 Views
His point was
- 04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM
973 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM*
- 05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM
468 Views
And again...
- 05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM
696 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?"
- 05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM
742 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize.
- 04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM
818 Views
- 04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM
818 Views
The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA.
- 04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM
910 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA.
- 05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM
683 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate.
- 05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM
829 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general
- 05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM
776 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
423 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM*
- 05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM
498 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but....
- 05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM
850 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution.
- 05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM
872 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote...
- 05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM
849 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
877 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
856 Views
I understand it.
- 05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM
847 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8
- 05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM
860 Views
- 05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM
867 Views
- 05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM
860 Views
- 05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM
867 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
758 Views
Oh, ees it?
- 05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM
885 Views
- 05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM
885 Views
Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing
- 05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM
766 Views
- 05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM
766 Views
Why would you complain if you won?
- 05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM
833 Views
- 05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM
833 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
709 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general.
- 06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM
700 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays
- 06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM
720 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here!
- 06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM
642 Views
- 06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM
642 Views
instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM*
- 05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM
421 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms.
- 05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM
848 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution
- 05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM
831 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected.
- 05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM
890 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended.
- 05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM
803 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing.
- 05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM
878 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
735 Views
Come now lets not be stupid
- 06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM
697 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant.
- 06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM
820 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant
- 06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM
786 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which.
- 05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM
737 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created
- 06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM
757 Views
Yes, no, no, and no.
- 06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM
806 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here
- 06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM
877 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support.
- 06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM
906 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with
- 06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM
864 Views
...said the pot to the kettle
- 06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM
941 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot
- 09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM
998 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts.
- 10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM
1339 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong.
- 10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM
782 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM*
- 10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM
420 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM*
- 10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM
448 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point
- 10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM
996 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
747 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM*
- 05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM
404 Views
it may not be a "right"...
- 05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM
731 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace.
- 05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM
816 Views
Hey, I'm single....
- 05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM
739 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it.
- 05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM
802 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well.....
- 05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM
756 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already.
- 05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM
989 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense.
- 05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM
740 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!!
- 05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM
857 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER!
- 06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM
743 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM*
- 06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM
388 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM*
- 06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM
479 Views
People are fed lies all the time
- 06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM
725 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM*
- 06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM
424 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some...
*NM*
- 06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM
674 Views
*NM*
- 06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM
674 Views
I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside.
- 05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM
835 Views
Since 1948
- 06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM
971 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM*
- 06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM
383 Views
I don't see any typo...
*NM*
- 06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM
437 Views
*NM*
- 06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM
437 Views
I agree
- 05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM
804 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South.
- 05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM
814 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws
- 05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM
764 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it
- 05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM
752 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress
- 05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM
812 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it?
- 05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM
732 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
717 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
492 Views
Link to the full court order inside:
- 04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM
948 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing.
- 04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM
804 Views
What page was that on?
- 05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM
721 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere.
- 05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM
834 Views
Oh, that is brilliant.
- 05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM
735 Views
Pretty much.
- 05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM
863 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
815 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead?
- 05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM
819 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive?
- 05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM
898 Views
Is it then illegal?
- 05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM
810 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
- 05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM
879 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
- 05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM
916 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then
- 05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM
830 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue!
- 05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM
977 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains
- 05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM
776 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights.
- 05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM
817 Views
Yes, but
- 06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM
765 Views
Absolutely not.
- 06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM
814 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health.
- 06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM
908 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM*
- 05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM
449 Views


