[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: 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. 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#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.
I agree with this part of your response completely. 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. I wonder why you see the CON-JOB we call CON-gress as conservatives vs. libs when it's actually left and further left when viewed objectively. If I actually thought there were a nickels worth of difference between the liars in CONgress I'd mention to you that the Democrats have controlled CONgress for a far larger portion of time than Republicans, and have likely passed a lot more legislation. I think both so-called parties work hand in hand to subvert the country.
I wonder why you see the CON-JOB we call CON-gress as conservatives vs. libs when it's actually left and further left when viewed objectively. I'm no stranger to the fraud in Congress, but I'm talking about the people. There's a large segment of society that has been duped into equating government with God. They try to outlaw sins. People are tricked into deciding whether gay marriage should be legal or not, and anyone taking either side is wrong. Government is the problem.
There are no replies to Comment # 29. End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||