Prop. 8 Overturned: The Facts, Not the Law, Matter

[babylonsister]

Prop. 8 Overturned: The Facts, Not the Law, Matter
Marc Ambinder

Aug 4 2010, 5:17 PM ET

snip//


Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come.

more...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/prop-8-overturned-the-facts-not-the-law-matter/60957/

[Born_A_Truman]

1. Thanks! K/R

[MineralMan]

2. It's going to be very difficult to refute any of these facts.

I do hope he refuses to stay this pending appeal.

[msongs]

3. maybe the mormon church's attempt to impose its religion on every is over....for now or

maybe not. The UU church could have challenged prop 8 as a pure violation of its religious beliefs but did not do so that I know of, and really,
all this anti gay marriage comes down to imposing religion on everyone in the name of certain cults

[KansDem]

4. Have we entered a second Age of Reason?

This list certainly points to that...

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[grantcart]

6. It is a devistating judgement. I found this part (page 24) to be lethal to 8

For the reasons stated in the sections that follow, the
evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises
underlying proponents’ proffered rationales for Proposition 8. An
initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect.
The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified
scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the
voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must
find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when
those determinations enact into law classifications of persons.
Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will
the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice,
no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The
evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8
finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is
beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their
representatives.




It is going to be very hard for any appelate body to overturn a judge that is saying that the proponents of 8 had no facts in evidence.

[babylonsister]

8. Thanks for finding that, grantcart. It might be hard, but

sadly, I'll bet one of those dastardly supremes are working on it as I type.

[grantcart]

9. I don't agree but I could be wrong

Judges play by a certain set of rules. In order to overturn a judgement there has to be some hook for an appelate judge to grab.

When the trial judgement makes statements that the proponents made NO effort to enter facts into the record then it becomes very difficult for an appelate judge to support overturning the decision.

Here is another example.



Proponents elected not to call the majority of their
designated witnesses to testify at trial and called not a single
official proponent of Proposition 8 to explain the discrepancies
between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters
and the arguments presented in court.



The proponents strongest argument was that the voters made an informed decision and that the will of the voters had a constitutional imperative to be followed.

Opponents established that the campaign for 8 engaged in misleading the public about the real effects of the proposition. By not calling a SINGLE witness to confront the charge it would seem that the Proposition 8 proponents were giving away their strongest argument. It will be impossible for them to unring this bell, they cannot enter in new evidence during appeal simply argue the weight that the current evidence was given.

The judge is boxing them in saying that the proponents made no effort to enter any evidence on these critical facts.

[babylonsister]

13. I so hope you're right; this would be historic and long overdue.

Thanks again! :toast:

[msanthrope]

16. You pointed out the 'animus' part here, grantcart.....good catch.

It's a direct shout-out to Romer....

(link added for those scoring at home.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Also--here's a quote that made me tear up...

"Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained."

[LawnKorn]

7. K&R

[malaise]

10. When did facts matter to Wingnuts?

By the way Ted Olson and David Boies will be guests on Rachel

[babylonsister]

14. Those guys deserve a standing "O"! nt

[malaise]

17. They sure do

This is historic

[political_Dem]

11. Thanks for this.

This article supplies reasons to cut down the opposition when they want to bring up their reasons for supporting Prop. 8.

[undeterred]

12. And the Constitution still matters, at least once in a while.

[Hosnon]

15. Truth is not the only goal of the judiciary.

And it doesn't really do a good job of finding it when it is looking for it.

A legal fact should not be mistaken for an actual fact.

While I agree that these legal facts are, for the most part, actual facts, it's not because a judge said so.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Strongly disagree with the post title.

If you're overturning a majority vote because it violates the law (in this case the constitution) then the definately matters.

[grantcart]

19. The author may be pointing to the fact that appelate courts, including the SC,

must defer to the deciding court on matters of fact.

Since the pro 8 side put on such a weak case all of the facts were decided on the NO-8 group.

This will significantly restrict the manouverability of the SC when deciding the issue. At this point the District Court's action on the facts is more significant than its decision on the law, which the SC is less likely to defer to.

[Hosnon]

21. Appellate courts don't have to defer to the trial court on findings of fact.

But the standard to overrule them is very deferential.

[david13]

20. Exactly why the Proposition was wrong. dc