See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage
Source:
L.A. Times
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l ... ornia-20100805,0,2696248.story
Published: Aug 5, 2010
Author: Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams
Post Date: 2010-08-05 10:28:06 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 304
Comments: 32
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. 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. Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years. It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing. 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. Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal. Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process," Pugno said. He called it "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8." At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law. John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. "I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University law school. Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling." Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong. "All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said. To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he said. In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior." He called the exclusion of same-couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage." "That time has passed," he wrote. Although sexual orientation deserves the constitutional protection given to race and gender, Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional even if gays and lesbians were afforded a lesser status, Walker said. His ruling stressed that there was no rational justification for banning gays from marriage.
Poster Comment: Taxpayers are genderless.
» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#1. To: All (#0)
Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process," Pugno said. Wrong ! Equal protection doesn't rely upon "The majority says so" ... The Constitution (when it did exist) contained the Bill of Rights to protect the minority as well as the majority. The objective was to set the fundamental principles upon which legal determinations could be weighed, evaluated and determined. Polls and Majority rules have nothing to do with the CONstitution. Ideally, neither CONgress or the States (STATES) are able to legislate acts or laws that violate Constitutional principles. Marriage licenses themselves violate the separation of church and State so often argued (in error) by litigants.
I think this is the heart of the problem. Marriage has become such a government regulated activity. Government needs to care less about marriage. If it did, then who's married to who would not be a gov matter. That's the messy part of this case. But the conservative R's have passed so many laws over a great many years that have made marriage interact with gov on numerous grounds, that a challenge by gays on constitutional grounds was really inevitable. Conservatives are being served their own kool-aid.
Marriage is a state regulated activity because the state has an important vested interest in it - ie. a man and woman marrying and reproducing and raising a family is in states'and generally speaking, society's best interests. The state by virtue of its licensing regulation tries to prevent minors from marrying without parent's consent, inbreeding of nuclear family members, sexual diseases being spread, etc You may not personally like the fact that states regulate/license marriage, but I don't think you can deny the fact that are good reasons they should.
Pure bullshit ! State licensing has no bearing on nor does it act as a deterrent to any of the above.
Whatever - that's your opinion - licensing marriage is a state regulatory function that has practical underpinnings. You may not care for the concept and you may not believe it is necessary but it is what it is and many citizens, myself included, support this particular state function. Not everything is a vast right wing/ elitist/ gubment control/ religious control blah blah conspiracy. Sometimes gov't regulatory activities exist because they have a practical common sense function.
Portland lemonade stand runs into health inspectors, needs $120 license to operate. It's hardly unusual to hear small-business owners gripe about licensing requirements or complain that heavy-handed regulations are driving them into the red. So when Multnomah County shut down an enterprise last week for operating without a license, you might just sigh and say, there they go again. Except this entrepreneur was a 7-year-old named Julie Murphy. Her business was a lemonade stand at the Last Thursday monthly art fair in Northeast Portland. The government regulation she violated? Failing to get a $120 temporary restaurant license. Turns out that kids' lemonade stands -- those constants of summertime -- are supposed to get a permit in Oregon, particularly at big events that happen to be patrolled regularly by county health inspectors. "I understand the reason behind what they're doing and it's a neighborhood event, and they're trying to generate revenue," said Jon Kawaguchi, environmental health supervisor for the Multnomah County Health Department. "But we still need to put the public's health first." Julie had become enamored of the idea of having a stand after watching an episode of cartoon pig Olivia running one, said her mother, Maria Fife. The two live in Oregon City, but Fife knew her daughter would get few customers if she set up her stand at home. Plus, Fife had just attended Last Thursday along Portland's Northeast Alberta Street for the first time and loved the friendly feel and the diversity of the grass-roots event. She put the two things together and promised to take her daughter in July. The girl worked on a sign, coloring in the letters and decorating it with a drawing of a person saying "Yummy." She made a list of supplies. Then, with gallons of bottled water and packets of Kool-Aid, they drove up last Thursday with a friend and her daughter. They loaded a wheelbarrow that Julie steered to the corner of Northeast 26th and Alberta and settled into a space between a painter and a couple who sold handmade bags and kids' clothing. Even before her daughter had finished making the first batch of lemonade, a man walked up to buy a 50-cent cup. "They wanted to support a little 7-year-old to earn a little extra summer loot," she said. "People know what's going on." Even so, Julie was careful about making the lemonade, cleaning her hands with hand sanitizer, using a scoop for the bagged ice and keeping everything covered when it wasn't in use, Fife said. After 20 minutes, a "lady with a clipboard" came over and asked for their license. When Fife explained they didn't have one, the woman told them they would need to leave or possibly face a $500 fine. Surprised, Fife started to pack up. The people staffing the booths next to them encouraged the two to stay, telling them the inspectors had no right to kick them out of the neighborhood gathering. They also suggested that they give away the lemonade and accept donations instead and one of them made an announcement to the crowd to support the lemonade stand. That's when business really picked up -- and two inspectors came back, Fife said. Julie started crying, while her mother packed up and others confronted the inspectors. "It was a very big scene," Fife said. Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday. "When you go to a public event and set up shop, you're suddenly engaging in commerce," he said. "The fact that you're small-scale I don't think is relevant." Kawaguchi, who oversees the two county inspectors involved, said they must be fair and consistent in their monitoring, no matter the age of the person. "Our role is to protect the public," he said. The county's shutdown of the lemonade stand was publicized by Michael Franklin, the man at the booth next to Fife and her daughter. Franklin contributes to the Bottom Up Radio Network, an online anarchist site, and interviewed Fife for his show. Franklin is also organizing a "Lemonade Revolt" for Last Thursday in August. He's calling on anarchists, neighbors and others to come early for the event and grab space for lemonade stands on Alberta between Northeast 25th and Northeast 26th. As for Julie, the 7-year-old still tells her mother "it was a bad day." When she complains about the health inspector, Fife reminds her that the woman was just doing her job. She also promised to help her try again -- at an upcoming neighborhood garage sale. While Fife said she does see the need for some food safety regulation, she thinks the county went too far in trying to control events as unstructured as Last Thursday. "As far as Last Thursday is concerned, people know when they are coming there that it's more or less a free-for-all," she said. "It's gotten to the point where they need to be in all of our decisions. They don't trust us to make good choices on our own." -- Helen Jung
There are no replies to Comment # 27. End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAndy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal.
#4. To: noone222 (#1)
Marriage licenses themselves violate the separation of church and State so often argued (in error) by litigants.
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
(Edited)
Marriage has become such a government regulated activity. Government needs to care less about marriage. If it did, then who's married to who would not be a gov matter.
#10. To: scrapper2 (#6)
The state by virtue of its licensing regulation tries to prevent minors from marrying without parent's consent, inbreeding of nuclear family members, sexual diseases being spread, etc
#14. To: noone222 (#10)
Pure bullshit ! State licensing has no bearing on nor does it act as a deterrent to any of the above.
#27. To: scrapper2 (#14)
Not everything is a vast right wing/ elitist/ gubment control/ religious control blah blah conspiracy. Sometimes gov't regulatory activities exist because they have a practical common sense function.
Replies to Comment # 27.