Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[The Minx]

Woot!

Link to PDF of decision.

Link to article.

Great news, at least until the appeal.

[SirNitram]

Everyone dance!

[The Minx]

Unsurprisingly, conservatives vow to take it to SCOTUS

Link

Conservatives vow to fight Prop. 8 ruling, citing threat to gay marriage bans nationwide

Within moments of a federal judge striking down California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday, religious conservatives vowed to fight the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, saying the decision threatens gay marriage bans nationwide.

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' " said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, referring to the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

Perkins and other conservatives said the ruling, which found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, would overturn marriage bans adopted by dozens of states if it is upheld.

Perkins told CNN he will work to make the ruling an issue in this fall's midterm elections. "This is the age of the Tea Party, where you have people saying government is not listening," Perkins told CNN. "And here you have a judge saying seven million people (who supported California's Proposition 8 ) don't matter."

Some conservatives began calling for a renewed push to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, an effort that was largely abandoned after it failed during President George W. Bush's administration.

"Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state's right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment," said Richard Land, who heads public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. "Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote."

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday that California's Proposition 8, which passed via a 2008 ballot initiative, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The case is now expected to go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The decision marks the first time a federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Though they denounced the decision, conservatives said they anticipated it and had been planning their next legal and political steps for months.

"We have a strong team of attorneys and they knew we were not only arguing this before a single judge, we were planning an argument that would go through the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court and they made decisions based on that," said Ron Prentice, chairman of the executive committee of ProtectMarriage.com, a California-based coalition.

"This is round one of what we knew would be a multi-round battle," Prentice said.

Beyond challenging Wednesday's ruling in court, conservative activists said they will try to hammer home the message that the final Proposition 8 ruling will determine the constitutionality of other state bans on gay marriage.

"A lot of Americans sitting back right now probably don't realize that this case involves more than California," said

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst with CitizenLink, the public policy arm of Focus on the Family. "This case is not about Prop. 8, it's about all 50 states."

A Gallup poll last May found that 44 percent of Americans support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, while 53 percent do not.

Since the late 1990s, 41 states have adopted constitutional amendments or other laws banning gay marriage, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

[frigidmagi]

Well of course they're going to push it to SCOTUS, if they shrug their shoulders and go home, they're out of the game and their followers will string them up. That's not really a surprise.

I find it interesting that about 3% of Americans haven't made up their minds and frankly I wouldn't be shock to find out an age divide between the yes and the noes.

Let me put it bluntly, while there are younger Americans on the other side of the fence, more and more I've been convinced that this isn't a cultural battle but a generational one. Which means frankly that the older side is doomed and worse come to worse, it means American politics is in a death watch, as we wait for enough of the baby boomers to die while asking how badly they'll trash the country first. I mean ASU is a pretty conservative college and it's widely in favor of allowing gays full citizenship rights which is a signal in and of itself.

One should also keep in mind that I consider the baby boomers one of the most overrated and damaging generations America has seen come down the pipe.

[General Havoc]

I agree with Frigid about the Boomer generation. No doubt the generation to follow mine will believe the same about me.

To borrow a marxist phrase, Gay marriage is a historical inevitability. On a macro level, society simply no longer cares about who wishes to marry whom. Fancy tricks and desperate hardline stands by its die-hard opponents will delay the institution for an electoral cycle here and a decade there, and yes, that is horrendously unfair to those living in the here and now, and no, that doesn't mean we should be complacent, but in the end, while Mayor Newsome was an idiot to phrase it this way, he was right: "It's not simply 'coming'. It's already here. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. It's long-past time to simply accept it.

[frigidmagi]

Thing is Havoc I can make a real case beyond "wah my parents suck."

[The Minx]

Update:


Link

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- A federal judge ruled on Thursday to allow same-sex couples to marry in California, starting on August 18, handing another big victory to supporters of gay rights in a case that both sides say will likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Walker had issued a temporary stay on his decision, which on Thursday he said he would lift.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Same-sex marriage is legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.

I had meant to update this earlier, with the story regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger urging the judge to make this decision, but it slipped my mind.

Here's that article:

Link

(CNN) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked a federal judge Friday to allow same-sex marriages while an appeal over the struck-down law that banned them makes its way through the courts.

Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed briefs two days after Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

In his Wednesday ruling, Walker also issued a temporary stay, which stopped his decision from taking effect.

If he lifts his stay, officials in California could immediately be allowed to perform same-sex marriages again. They were able to do so, briefly, before the Proposition 8 ban passed in 2008.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," read the brief from Schwarzenegger. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

Supporters of Proposition 8 argued, prior to Walker's ruling, that same-sex marriages would be performed soon after he issued his opinion and could be complicated by rulings and appeals down the road. They asked the judge to stay his decision pending appeal.

The case goes next to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and both sides say it is sure to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Walker could issue his decision on the stay as early as next week.

Brown, a Democrat who is running to replace Schwarzenegger, also weighed in on the controversial case.

"As this Court has concluded that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, the public interest weighs against its continued enforcement," read the brief from Brown.

Brown's opponent in the governor's race, Meg Whitman, told reporters before Walker's ruling she is against same-sex marriage but favors civil unions, according to the Associated Press. The news agency reported Whitman, a Presbyterian, has explained her vote for Proposition 8 as one of "faith and conscience."

"I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman," the AP reported Whitman said at a campaign stop in East Los Angeles.

Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests over same-sex marriage. It passed in California with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire -- and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey.

Way to go Arnie.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Well of course they're going to push it to SCOTUS, if they shrug their shoulders and go home, they're out of the game and their followers will string them up. That's not really a surprise.

That is the funny part. They can't. Scalia and his Familiar will never set eyes to brief because the state of CA does not want to appeal the case to the 9th circuit.

Here is the deal. The actual defendants in the case were the State and various agencies therein. They attempted to withdraw, but the judge would not let them. As a result the Defendants Intervenor, the actual proponents of prop 8 defended it. They however have no standing to appeal the ruling to the 9th circuit, let alone the SCOTUS because in order to appeal a ruling under US law you actually have to be harmed by the decision under appeal.

The proponents of prop 8 have no standing to challenge Judge Walkers ruling, and the state of CA does not want any part of the case. As a result we have persuasive precedent that gay people area Suspect Class and warrant Strict Scrutiny in all further federal court cases.


HAHAHAHAH!!!!!

[frigidmagi]

Not so fast Benny. Arnie's government doesn't want to appeal but several things:

A group of private citizens can push the case. Or after the upcoming election if the Repubs win, they can chose to push.

Don't assume it's dead just yet.

[Hadrianvs]

That is the funny part. They can't. Scalia and his Familiar will never set eyes to brief because the state of CA does not want to appeal the case to the 9th circuit.

It would actually be pretty funny if the case did make it to the Supreme Court. Scalia, you see, loathes poor legal arguments, and Prop 8 is being defended by one of the most incompetent string of bufoons to ever appear before court on a Constitutional matter. While it is likely that Scalia would vote to uphold Prop 8, there'd be an epic tongue lashing directed at its defenders beforehand.

[General Havoc]

It would actually be pretty funny if the case did make it to the Supreme Court. Scalia, you see, loathes poor legal arguments, and Prop 8 is being defended by one of the most incompetent string of bufoons to ever appear before court on a Constitutional matter. While it is likely that Scalia would vote to uphold Prop 8, there'd be an epic tongue lashing directed at its defenders beforehand.

What buffoons are these? I know little of the legal arguments around Prop 8, and would find it awesome to hear Antonin Scalia of all people to tear the Prop 8 backers in half. The man may be an arch-conservative, but he wields invective and scathing wit like few living men.

[Jason_Firewalker]

I believe that its Olson and Boies, two horridly idiotic legal minds. They are boisterous, loud and prove to use delaying as their best legal tactics. They like things getting caught up in all sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo without saying anything, its how they win. They are horrid litigators, crappy constitutional lawyers, but great at finding ways to tie cases up and make them take too long for the opposition to be able to afford to keep going. They have a lot of heavy hitter cases under their belts but the way these two win is by attrition, they make the opposition, usually a much smalller opponent, waste their money keeping the case going and not allowing it to make any progress, they don't fight to win, the fight to make it hard to get ground on them so it costs their enemy too much money to make it worth it. Both men are horrid litigators, never winning cases on merit or litigational fortitude. My dad (a respected jury consultant and close friends with some of the greatest minds and litigators of the world's legal elite) despises these men for their sneaky underhanded and reprehensible tactics. These two are the kind of attorneys that give all attorneys a bad name.

[Steve]

They practice the Fabian strategy, in other words?

[The Minx]

Another update, and it is a bad one:

Link

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has blocked same-sex marriage in California, until it hears broader questions over the constitutionality of such marriages. The brief order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a federal judge's decision last month permitting same-sex marriages to resume.

Sigh. Well, the battle is begun, it seems.

[Charon]

Yes this is bad news, but hardly unexpected.

The judge gave it a leeway before his ruling began to take effect because he knew this was going to happen. Hell, even if I were an Appeals judge and I had already made up my mind on the issue to uphold the decision I would probably still keep a hold on it until the Appeal had gone through the proper channels.

[Hadrianvs]

What buffoons are these? I know little of the legal arguments around Prop 8

I would really recommend that you read the ruling. If you don't have the time or inclination to go through all 136 pages of it, the first 24 give a good overview. The one page long conclusion at the end is also pretty neat.

If you want the really condensed version. Here goes:

Plaintiffs called 17 witnesses, the four plaintiffs themselves, four lay witnesses, and nine expert witnesses. The Proponents had only six witnesses lined up, and of those they called... two.Of the four withdrawn witnesses two of them had their deposition statements used by the Plaintiffs to support their own case. The Proponents failed to challenge this in any way. Of the two witnesses they did call, "Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions." And, "Miller’s testimony sought to rebut only a limited aspect of plaintiffs’ equal protection claim relating to political power."

The judge doesn't hesitate to mention at every turn how the arguments presented by the Proponents were baseless, incoherent, and unsuported.

In a nutshell: EPIC FAIL