Prop 8 Wasn't Just "Overturned", This Decision Is A ROCK SOLID SMACKDOWN

[Beetwasher]

That will be almost impossible to reverse on an appeal. You have GOT to read this decision. It is as solid and as unassailable as you can get.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/prop_8_ruled_unconstitutional.php?ref=fpblg

"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 California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and 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. "

--snip--

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents' case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

--snip--

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. ... The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate own moral code."

[saracat]

1. Genuine "Good news"I am celebrating!

:toast: :party: :toast: :bounce: :thumbsup:

[Beetwasher]

2. If You Really Want To Feel Good, Read The Decision

It's phenomenal.

[saracat]

3. I did, and I absolutely agree!

[RiffRandell]

4. Love it! n/t

[boobooday]

5. I'm going to drink to this

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[Bobbie Jo]

6. K&R!

Outstanding! :kick:

[Posteritatis]

7. I love that he ruled Blankenhorn's testimony inadmissible

The fact that the judge is a Bush Sr. appointee adds to the delicious ragefuel. This is great.

[CBR]

8. K&R nt

[Hekate]

9. KnR Kickety-kick, the Liberal Rockettes

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[gratuitous]

10. There have been several blogs reporting on this as it went along

And they seemed in pretty general agreement that the pro-8 legal arguments were nonsensical, circular, internally inconsistent, and lacking in legal foundation. The reporting also indicated that the panel wasn't buying the pro-8 arguments even as they were being made. It's usually an iffy proposition to guess what an appellate panel might do based on oral argument (sometimes the judges can be hard on the side that they will favor, as if to make them really earn it), but in this case, it seems Prop 8 was bigotry dressed up in fancy language, and the panel so ruled.

[Fearless]

11. In the words of Lewis Black... Fuckin A!

[readmoreoften]

12. WOW.

:wow: I was not expecting something that awesome.

[Arkana]

13. Yeah, Walker buried it pretty deep--he did an excellent job.

It will be an uphill climb for the bigot brigade and I would actually bet against them if it gets to the Supreme Court, believe it or not. Remember, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence--so I wouldn't bet against the LGBT community if this case goes all the way to the top.

[AlinPA]

14. I look for the republicans to take the appeal to the SC very soon.

[Kajsa]

15. Judge Walker covered all the bases.

"a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is
inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women,
this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate."

- he did his job and he did it well.

This is a great day for our state!

:)

[RainDog]

16. this is a great day for religious freedom in this nation!

as well as a great day for my CA brothers and sisters.

[Kajsa]

17. Thanks, RainDog!

:) :pals:

[robertpaulsen]

18. Love the reference to Lawrence.

Not that it will matter to SCOTUS. If Scalia writes the (hopefully) dissenting opinion, I'm sure he'll just pretend there was no possible precedent that could have possibly allowed an opinion other than his.

[Kurovski]

19. it almost seems to ask...

is this America, or are we just pretending this is America?

K&R!

[DirkGently]

20. The present makeup of the S.C. is worrisome

I've never felt that way before, but the Fascist Foursome now seated in the S.C. seems eager to overturn reason in favor pet conservative ideologies.

It WILL be hard, legally, to reverse the decision, not only because the opinion seems solidly written, but because Equal Protection means "equal protection." You'd have to contort the Constitution pretty forcefully to conclude that you can deny the rights and privileges of "marriage" to people based on sexual orientation.

But they could do it. I hope they're better than that, but we shall see.

[zipplewrath]

21. I can hear it now

Scalia will say that the constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, it is a state issue, and the people are equally protected because anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex they so choose.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

25. Yes it is a state issue but the Full Faith and Credit clause applies.

They didn't even need to cite that in this California opinion.

You get married in one state, move to another state, your marriage is not automatically invalidated.

That's what happened in Loving v. Virginia.

They got married in DC, and moved to Virginia, sued Virginia.

Yes I am a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. :D

Scalia can't get around the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Tough toenails.

[zipplewrath]

26. from your lips to Scalia's ears

Just sayin'

[Althaia]

22. a link to the ruling

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/prop-8-defeat-read-the-decision/19581399

[Norrin Radd]

23. kr

[paulkienitz]

24. Judge Walker may be wearing a superhero suit under that robe... anyone checked? (nt)