Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage

[babylonsister]

Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage

Judge says the same-sex marriage ban was rooted in 'moral disapproval' and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Opponents vow to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.


Same-sex marriage supporters celebrate a federal court judge's ruling to overturn Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage. (Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times / August 4, 2010)


By Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times

August 4, 2010|6:38 p.m.


Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles —

A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.

snip//

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"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.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,3014822,full.story

[uppityperson]

1. Oh wouldn't that be wonderful.

[babylonsister]

2. There's a chance that what this judge ruled on and his

ruling is so tight that the supremes can't justify voting against it.

We'll see. I hope.

[Fearless]

5. *Crosses fingers*

[babylonsister]

7. Me, too, "FEARLESS"! Ha! nt

[Fearless]

3. The civil rights battle of the century, no doubt about it.

[babylonsister]

4. And from the LA Times. I don't usually agree with them on their

slant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. This is... potentially, a landmark case

one of those that future history teachers and future poli sci teachers will refer back as a critical case in US Law. We don't see many of those. I'd hazard to say we get to see one or two in our lifetimes. But this one has that feel to it.

Oh and the defense of Prop 8... that was some very lousy defense. I guess God was not on their side, all pun intended.

[Lisa0825]

8. That is what I was hoping to hear!!!

But when I posted that in another thread, someone said it wasn't the right level to set a precedent, so I deleted my post. But now I ee the difference.... it may not SET a precedent, but it may be a step in leading toward it!

:applause:

[JBoy]

9. Federal constitution considerations were key to legalizing gay marriage in Canada

More specifically, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Provincial courts began striking down laws limiting gay marriage rights on the basis that the laws were contrary to equality provisions in the Charter. Like dominoes, other Provinces fell rapidly in line, then the federal government passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. The whole process took just a couple of years.

I see this Prop 8 decision as the first domino in the US.

[MineralMan]

10. If the full 9th Circuit upholds this ruling, which I believe sincerely

that they will, the precedent will be clear. The SCOTUS may well choose to simply punt and not hear this case, although I doubt that will happen. If they do consider it, it will probably be in the SCOTUS session that starts in October 2011, assuming that the 9th Circuit rules in time.

The immediate question is whether the judge will stay his ruling pending appeal. I'm thinking that he will not, using the reason that the ruling is not likely to be overturned on appeal. In that case, every gay and lesbian couple wanting to marry should do so at the earliest opportunity. There truly is strength in numbers.