Judge rules Prop. 8 is unconstitutional

From the LA Times:

The federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 Wednesday said the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage was based on moral disapproval of gay marriage and ordered the state to stop enforcing the ban.

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

“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. The ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

13 Comments

  1. Because of the way the opinion was written (i.e. that the State has no reasonable interest in supporting discrimination in contravention of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause), the Supremes will have a hard time finding for their friends. That would mean throwing out their fundamental legal philosophy: that of limitation of the rights of the State over the rights of the Individual (read: Corporation). So I really wouldn’t be surprised if they find some excuse to punt, and simply refuse to hear the case.

  2. Every once in a while, a decision like this comes down and renews a little bit of my trust in the justice system and a little of my faith in humanity.

    1. yes and no on that 1, if democracy were to be practiced in its purest form it would simply be mob rule in which any minority the majority didnt like for what ever reason would most likley be opressed at best we shall just say, the majority often does get its way but the majority is not always right so to think of it another way call it an inbuilt way of making sure desicions made by democratic process are correct (or not correct as this case may be) rather than the democratic process itself being defeated (lol i just realised how cold war era that sounds :P)

    2. What you are talking about is mob rule, not democracy. Without a solid constitutional footing, without some sort of check on the mob’s tendency to exclude and ostracize, there can be no real democracy. What happens then is simply that even a small majority (50% + 1) is able to whack every other citizens, even to the point of extermination.

      Without the 14th amendment, Dred Scott would still stand to this day. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Are you really defending Dred Scott? I don’t think you consciously are, but you have to really pay attention to the consequences of your beliefs. What you are saying is that you would wish that direct democracy was an absolute; and that would mean that Dred Scott, and countless other “legal” forms of discrimination, would be on the books.

      An America ruled by direct “Democracy” would be impossible to distinguish from any totalitarian state. It is one of these things in life that you need to accept: there is no absolute. Absolute Democracy ends up in Absolute Totalitarianism (which doesn’t tend to survive very long…).

    3. Everyone’s response to this should be a resounding “no.”

      Remember 7th grade civics? We live in a republic and not a direct democracy. Furthermore, when public referenda *are* actually used to answer civic questions, majority rule is checked and balanced by the guarantee of inalienable minority rights. Furthermore, we rely on the judicial branch of government to iron out laws, their interpretations and their constitutionality. When a law is determined to be factually unfounded and motivated by animus rather than *any* secular interest of the government, the legal process is expected to remove it from circulation.

      THAT is the American democratic process.

  3. We adopted our son when he was nine years old. He had been in six foster homes before he came to live with us. A couple of years ago he came out .

    I am so happy about this decision and hope it stands. My hope is that, after all my son has been through, his government will not tell him he does not have the right to start his own legitimate family.

    If this decision stands it will give gay children hope and be a huge step forward in keeping them safe.

  4. This isn’t a thing to VOTE on.
    Putting the rights of a specific group on the block like that is just dumb when you consider how mobilized the religious fundamentalists are these days.
    OF COURSE they’re going to vote against giving gay people rights because their “good book” tells them that gay people are an abomination – less than human – evil, doomed to burn eternally in Hell, etc…
    The only argument is religious. There’s simply no other reason to deny a specific group of people a specific right that everyone else has acces to.

Comments are closed.