UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Prop 8 Overturned In Landmark Federal Ruling

In the long-awaited ruling Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker handed down a doozy of a
ruling: The voter-approved law known as Prop 8, which stripped
California's same-sex couples of the right to marry, is
unconstitutional, violating both due process and equal protection
clauses. And how is your day going?
TAKEAWAY: Walker's ruling is, plainly, a vicious
assault on the very premise that marriage discrimination is legal, and
that voters can decide such a matter. He does not hold back on
painting, in very clear language, how each of the defendant's arguments
about why Prop 8 should stand are a farce. This is a bold, unequivocal
win. It's also crucial to note how many aspects of banning same-sex
marriage Walker addressed, which will help the case as it's appealed;
moving forward judges must look at Walker's ruling as a basis for their
own judgments.
CAN CALIFORNIA GAYS MARRY … STARTING RIGHT NOW? No. According to the ruling Prop 8 is dead immediately.
As if it didn't exist. As in: No government office or county clerk can
withhold marriage licenses from same-sex couples, because the language
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California" is erased. Walker's ruling means the California State
Supreme Court's 2008 decision legalizing same-sex marriage stands. However:
It's unclear whether Walker is granting or denying the defense's
request to stay the decision until appeals are exhausted, and there
will be no action until Walker makes a decision on the motion.
CAN ALL GAYS GET MARRIED? Haha, no. This thing is
headed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and from there the
Supreme Court. Only a ruling there could knock down every state law and
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
ANY WORD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? Barack Obama is celebrating his 49th birthday today, in case you thought he was too busy for you beforehand.
Some main points from the ruling:
• "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
characterize plaintiffs’ objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage'
would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what
opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage.
Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for
what they are: marriages."
• "Domestic partnerships do not satisfy California's obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry."
• "The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition
8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex
parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF
69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that
opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically
related to both parents."
• "PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES
PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS
COMPELLING) REASON. Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their
fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not
be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"
• "Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no
adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California
has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant
marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not
rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding
with caution when implementing social change."
• "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."
• "PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS.
Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal
Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is
simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. One
example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses
to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or
county officials to issue them. But marriage licenses in California are
not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married
couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow
both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed. See Background to
Proposition 8 above."
And my personal favorite part of the ruling (which I've had five seconds to skim):
• "A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION.
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. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno,
413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433
(1984) ('[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.')." The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to
pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its
passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are
morally superior to same-sex couples. The campaign relied heavily on
negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting
children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and
lesbians.

CONCLUSION:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence
that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection
rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional
violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.
California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as
it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and
has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66;
moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8
in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment
permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official
defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the
official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision
shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and
plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors
pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

And if you even care, here's the National Organization for Marriage's
Brian Brown: "Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge
Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial. With a
stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7
million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.
This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in
California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one
man and one woman.”
Full ruling:
Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

Knew this would be here. Can't say I am surprised. Judges in this country love to practice judicial activism. Don't we feel safe knowing a single judge can basically overturn anything the people decide? Agree with the decision or not, it's scary territory, and I frankly do not like unchecked power like this.

Of course, gay marriage supporters will take joy in this. Those of us who see the bigger picture, well, we'll just have more proof. Besides, declaring something unconstitutional anymore, doesn't really mean anything since America hasn't given a damn about the constitution in a long time.

But I'll leave ya'll to your partying.

It is a staple of American political commentary that whichever side loses in higher courts laments about "judicial activism".

RobbieFTW wrote:It is a staple of American political commentary that whichever side loses in higher courts laments about "judicial activism".

Just like it a staple that those on the winning side of Judicial Activism are willfully blind to it!

Of course, I wasn't on this case so I am not on a side. I know it is a temporary victory that in the grand scheme of things only means indicative things. Yes, it does clearly fall into Judicial Activism and I think people should be worried about the future when they won't always be on the winning side of things. But I am sure people will enjoy the illusion of victory for now. They always do.

Well, yes. Only winning and losing sides change seats sometimes, which
means (as I was implying) that ~everyone~ at some point or other
laments said activism.

RobbieFTW wrote:Well, yes. Only winning and losing sides change seats sometimes, which
means (as I was implying) that ~everyone~ at some point or other
laments said activism.

I don't deny that. That doesn't make all claims of it invalid. So it's a moot point.

Well it's about damn time, that's all I can say. So...

It actually may not be over. This can be contested all the way to the US Supreme Court, but it's a huge step toward marriage equality for gays. Actually opponents would be taking a HUGE risk if they contested it, because if the US Supreme court rules in favor of marriage rights for gays, it would then be legalized across the board and every state would allow it!

The bigots are losing! Just goes to show that love is stronger than hate.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Don't we feel safe knowing a single judge can basically overturn anything the people decide? Agree with the decision or not, it's scary territory, and I frankly do not like unchecked power like this.

This was posted at another forum and I agree w/it:
"It is the obligation of the Judicial branch of Government to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not the obligation of the People. If the People vote for something that is in opposition to the Constitution, those votes are irrelevant. That is why we have a democracy and not mob rule."

stonestatic wrote:"It is the obligation of the Judicial branch of Government to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not the obligation of the People. If the People vote for something that is in opposition to the Constitution, those votes are irrelevant. That is why we have a democracy and not mob rule."

I'd agree, but this isn't unconstitutional by any means, so basically it's just the judicial branch again trying to force it's personal beliefs on the people under the disguise of the constitution. Nothing in Prop 8 violated anybody's actual constitutional rights, so like many modern judges, they imagined so-called rights in said constitution(that nobody gives a damn about anyway anymore, some politicians have all but outright admitted this), and then rule like they've always been there. It was this guy's personal opinion and nothing more. So one federal guy decides that 7 million people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves. Agree or disagree with his ruling, people shouldn't really like that.

So hence, again, judicial activism overriding the will of the people. I don't worry too much cause I know it won't mean much when all is said and done. But activism is activism and this is activism, and it's only a matter of time before activism strikes again in a way that those celebrating today will be steamed at.

BTW, those against gay marriage are hardly bigots. If anything, the bigoted view is that you are a bigot if you don't accept it, since it is the view that is truly being intolerant. Love will win out over hate, hence why I know this activist decision is just a bump in the road. This decision isn't even really about so-called gay marriage in the end. But I got no need to get too upset since this will just be another reminder to mainstream America that the Federal Government has forgotten it's place.

CatEyes10736 wrote:It actually may not be over. This can be contested all the way to the US Supreme Court, but it's a huge step toward marriage equality for gays. Actually opponents would be taking a HUGE risk if they contested it, because if the US Supreme court rules in favor of marriage rights for gays, it would then be legalized across the board and every state would allow it!

The bigots are losing! Just goes to show that love is stronger than hate.

I've heard the 9th Circuit will probably not touch it so it will go to the SCOTUS. Gives me hope that this will finally stick & gay people can enjoy the rights they've always deserved.

It's gonna be a bloody battle. I heard that the Yes On 8 campaign are gearing up for an appeal, although many think that their side will ultimately fail in court .