Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Political Junky]

Just in.
More to follow.

 

[mal]

EXCLUSIVE 1:26 PM PT: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection. Will be released at 2 PM PT...
Judge strikes down -- IN 138 PAGE RULING -- 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'...

JUDGE: PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS...

JUDGE: Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...

'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...

JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...

---

From Drudge...



peace...

 

[mal]

A Judge... Ain't over.



peace...

 

[Political Junky]

Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage - San Jose Mercury News


ReprintPrint Email Font Resize
Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage

By Howard Mintz

[email protected]
Posted: 08/04/2010 01:51:23 PM PDT
Updated: 08/04/2010 01:56:00 PM PDT


A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 136-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker sided with two same-sex couples that challenged voter-approved Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state. Walker ordered that Proposition 8 should be immediately voided, and same-sex couples be given the chance marry across California.

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," the judge wrote. "The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.
<more>

 

[mal]

Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage - San Jose Mercury News


ReprintPrint Email Font Resize
Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage

By Howard Mintz

[email protected]
Posted: 08/04/2010 01:51:23 PM PDT
Updated: 08/04/2010 01:56:00 PM PDT


A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 136-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker sided with two same-sex couples that challenged voter-approved Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state. Walker ordered that Proposition 8 should be immediately voided, and same-sex couples be given the chance marry across California.

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," the judge wrote. "The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.
<more>

Yep...



peace...

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh who didn't see this coming?

"Fuck the will of the people, we fascists jerkoffs want the right to force our perversions on everyone we damn well please. Our rights matter, you straights fucking suck if you disagree and shouldn't be allowed to have rights!"

Way to feed homo-hatred, judge! Great way to assure violence will probably go up in the future if this stands.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That makes me really happy. Yeah judge.

 

[ConHog]

They are inferior, but who cares? Let them marry.

Or better yet, Hey government you have no right to regulate marriage in the first place, get out of the business. Meaning I can go ahead and marry my wife's sister also, I've had my eye on her for quite some time anyway.

 

[DavidS]

Oh who didn't see this coming?

"Fuck the will of the people, we fascists jerkoffs want the right to force our perversions on everyone we damn well please. Our rights matter, you straights fucking suck if you disagree and shouldn't be allowed to have rights!"

Way to feed homo-hatred, judge! Great way to assure violence will probably go up in the future if this stands.

Wait, uh... tell me exactly... how is two people, that are gay, getting married forcing "our preservations on everyone we damn well please."??

How are gays forcing themselves on you if they're getting married? How are you being harmed?

 

[Sky Dancer]

If this goes to the SCOTUS then marriage equality may become the law of the land.

 

[hjmick]

Whatever.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Whatever.

Not a lot of enthusiam, LOL. I hope it happens in my lifetime. I'm thinking of the lesbian couple, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons who were married just before Prop *.

They'd been together for 50 years and Del died just before marriage equality was defeated again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is there ever a good reason for productive, law abiding, contributing members of society being denied any of the rights, privileges and benefits that said society provides?

 

[Big Fitz]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Actually, it was a close vote and it was influenced by alot of out of state LDS and RCC interests.

 

[Big Fitz]

Of course, you know who the real winners in all this is:

Divorce Attorneys. mmmmm MM! Them's some real goldmines ready to be dug up there. You thought heterosexual divorce was bad...

 

[Skull Pilot]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

if the public voted overwhelmingly against equal rights for Blacks would you be so ready to support it?

Civil rights are not to be voted on.

 

[Yurt]

a good ruling and i knew it was going to be ruled on this way...

scotus will uphold it

get government out of marriage if you don't like it

 

[Chris]

Just in.
More to follow.

This is a great day for America.

 

[Valerie]

Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that Proposition 8 -- California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage -- is unconstitutional.

Q: What happens next?

A: The losing side is hoping the judge immediately issues a stay to stop the ruling from going into effect until appeals are filed. Supporters of the voter-approved referendum in particular were concerned that if they lost, same-sex marriages could be performed before the judge rules on the stay request, which could take several weeks.

The next step will be for the losing side to file a "merits" appeal with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asking it to essentially decide whether the judge's ruling was proper. Both those for and those against Prop 8 will probably ask this court to fast-track the case, that it be heard on an expedited basis.

Lawyers will argue on the larger legal questions in front of the three judges on the court, and then a written ruling will be issued. The losing side at this stage can ask an "en banc" panel of 11 judges from the court to hear the case.

The appeals court has no deadline in which to decide the constitutional questions, so the waiting game could drag on for many months.

Q: What will be argued?

A: This is a federal appeal over the impact created by a state referendum.

At issue is whether it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection" and "due process." Such individual protections have often been used in cases of civil rights, such as school desegregation and voting.

Those against Prop 8 will say that marriage is a fundamental state-sanctioned right and that same-sex couples are being discriminated against when laws deny them that right. Prop 8 proponents have said that state legislatures and voters have the right to amend a state constitution on defining marriage and that their wishes must be respected by the federal courts.

Q: How does it get to the Supreme Court?

A: After the 9th Circuit court rules, lawyers have the option of asking the Supreme Court to intervene, likely the next step instead of the larger "en banc" panel.

The nine justices on the Supreme Court, unlike lower courts, have the discretion to deny hearing the case. In fact, only about 1 percent of petitions for certiorari -- which this appeal is labeled -- are accepted by the court for argument.

If the case is accepted, as would be expected, both sides will file a series of written briefs, oral arguments would be held, and then a written ruling is issued. The high court usually releases its rulings by June of the annual term that begins in October, within a few months at most of hearing a case.

Q: How long will it take to get there, given that this is a landmark case?

A: Depending on how long it takes the appeals court to decide how quickly to hear the case and then to decide the constitutional questions, it could be a year or two before the case reaches the Supreme Court.

Q: How might some justices look at the case?

A: Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court - CNN.com

>