It's not really about CA. This is the Federal Courts. Should the 9th Circuit up hold Judge Walker's ruling and then SCOTUS upholds it, same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hvIsVltJIR...-8-larimie.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...xA6UHkbhHipAE=


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...zMdegF9FHDznc=


http://images3.cpcache.com/product/p...x225_Front.jpg


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...vxUmF74yMVDhU=

http://speakequal.com/wp-content/upl...y-marriage.jpg

All I can come up with is -

"You Can't Ban Love" and/or
"You Can't Ban Family"

"Love Triumphs Over H8te"

:LGBTQFlag:

from towle
 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSITION 8 RULING

ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Judge Walker's decision runs 138 pages. It is well-reasoned, exhaustively cited and drafted with one eye on its Main Street ramifications and another eye on the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In other words, this Order establishes a comprehensive factual record for review. And that, as any appellate lawyer knows, is going to be the source of our salvation or the harbinger of our defeat.

When the decision of a trial judge like Judge Walker goes up on appeal, his legal conclusions are reviewed by the appellate court de novo, or "from the beginning." That means that Judge Walker can conclude that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause for this or that reason, but appellate judges are not bound by his conclusions. However, Judge Walker's factual findings -- such as the effect of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or statistics on thriving children of same-sex couples -- must be accepted by the appellate court unless they are "clearly erroneous." A clearly erroneous finding of fact is looking up at the sky, seeing it is blue and having a weatherman tell you it's blue, but concluding that the sky is, indeed, red. We do this because it was Judge Walker who heard the evidence and evaluated the trustworthiness of the witnesses with his own two eyes.

Judge Walker's factual findings are breathtaking, if only for their sheer depth. From page 54 to 109, Judge Walker lays out his findings, eviscerates the testimony of anti-marriage equality experts and emphasizes the long list of statements where Prop 8 opponents conceded their factual case. In my years as an appellate litigator, I have never seen a factual record as detailed and well-documented as this. My compliments to Judge Walker and his clerks.

Let me highlight a few striking points here:

1. This case is about civil marriage. Religious belief has no place here.

Right off the bat, Judge Walker found that "[m]arriage in the United States has always been a civil matter" (p. 60, para. 19). The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We watched with dismay, anger and frustration as Prop 8 supporters screamed that marriage equality laws would forces churches and synagogues to cosecrate relationships contrary to their liturgy. In one line, Judge Walker does away with this nonsense. What we are dealing with here, he states, is civil marriage. After all, it is the "[c]ivil authorities [who] may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter to leave a civil marriage." (p. 60, para 19). The supremacy of civil marriage takes this conversation out of the church and onto the town square.

2. Marriage is a state of commitment, not a construct in which to have children.

Just as important is Judge Walker's findings about the nature of marriage. "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" (p. 67, para. 34). Absent from this definition, based on extensive citations to evidence offered at trial, is marriage based on procreation or gender-specific roles. A marriage is a partnership based on deeply held emotional love and, as an institution, channels benefits to the married couple, their dependents and society at large. What's more, each of those benefits -- facilitating order, creating a realm of intimacy, creating stable households, providing children with support structures, assigning caregivers, facilitating property ownership and incentivizing healthy behaviors -- exists irrespective of the gender and sexual orientation of the married couple (pp 67-71).

3. Same-sex couples are just like opposite-sex couples.

The entree to these appetizers came later. Judge Walker found that "[s]ame-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love to do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex" (p. 77, para. 48).

And on the seventh day, he rested.

Seriously, though, this profound description of equality is at the heart of the marriage equality movement. Judge Walker cites Prop 8 supporters' admissions at trial that gay partnerships are loving and commitment and that the capacity to commit and love "does not depend on the individual's sexual orientation" (p. 77, para. 48(d)). We are all the same and we all deserve to be treated as such.

4. Domestic partnerships insufficiently recognize those relationships.

Since marriage is not merely an economic union, or a procreative one, for that matter, domestic partnerships that assign certain economic benefits of marriage to nonmarried cohabitants is a separate, unequal and insufficient substitute. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States" (p. 80, para. 52).

Judge Walker recognizes that we do not want to marry the loves of our lives for the joint tax return or the propsect of doubling our wardrobes. That might be part of it, but it's not the whole story. Citing expert testimony about the cultural importance tied to marriage, Judge Walker finds that marriage is greater than the sum of the economic rights associated with it. And, since same-sex couples are no different in their love and commitment than opposite-sex couples, there seems to be no reason to exclude them from this institution.

In the end, it is hard to accept these facts and not conclude as Judge Walker did. Nothing here is clearly erroneous and any appellate court will be hard-pressed to upset any of these factual findings.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

I hope he chooses to let them resume immediately.

I kind of like a BumperSticker I saw on the way home today

"When Religion Rules the world, we'll call it the Dark Ages"

A bit long....from the prop 8 blog
 

Analyzing the Prop 8 WIN: A Few Large Points
(I want to introduce my husband, Brian Devine. He’s an attorney that practices civil litigation attorney in San Francisco. We were married back in September 2008, when marriage was legal. We are both hopeful that we’ll get to attend many more weddings. – Brian Leubitz)

By Brian Devine

Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision today overturning Proposition 8, finding that it violates both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection rights in the United States Constitution. Here’s a full copy of the 138-page decision.

Most of the decision (the first 109 pages) is the “factual findings.” This is crucial, and here’s why. On appeal, Judge Walker’s conclusions of law are basically irrelevant. Questions of law are decided fresh on appeal, and the trial court’s thoughts on the law are entitled to no deference. On the other hand, only a trial court can make factual findings. A Court of Appeal must give great deference to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when those findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony. Judge Walker knows this. He knows that his primary role in this case is to weigh the credibility of the evidence that was presented at trial and apply the facts that were proven to the law. But the law–unlike the facts–ultimately will be decided by nine Justices at a higher pay grade. Consequently, we should be grateful to Judge Walker for carefully and diligently going through the facts of the case, creating a detailed and compelling record for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
In a big victory for marriage equality, Judge Walker found that the “strict scrutiny” test applies to the Due Process analysis. As its name implies, this is the most stringent of the tests that can be used to determine if a law satisfies the Due Process Clause. To satisfy “strict scrutiny,” the State must show that the law is “narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.” On the other hand, the most relaxed standard–and the one that the anti-equality crowd argued should apply–is “rational basis review.” Under “rational basis review,” the Court will uphold a discriminatory law if the State has any rational reason for having the law. Judge Walker found that the “strict scrutiny” test applies instead of the “rational basis” test because marriage is a fundamental right. When the State takes away a fundamental right, it must have a compelling reason to do so. But going even further, Judge Walker found that even if the Prop 8 proponents were right and the “rational basis” test should apply, Prop 8 still does not pass muster. Finding that Prop 8 does not even pass the “rational basis” test, Judge Walker easily found that it could not pass the compelling interest requirement of strict scrutiny.

Turning to the Equal Protection claim, Judge Walker’s analysis is essentially the same as for Due Process. First, he found it unnecessary for the Court to determine which of the three tests (rational basis, intermediate review, or strict scrutiny) should be used to conduct the Equal Proection analysis because Prop 8 cannot satisfy rational basis review, the most relaxed of these standards. Although Judge Walker finds that the evidence shows that “strict scrutiny” probably applies, he found that he did not need to reach that decision. Second, Judge Walker goes on to show in detail why each of the arguments advanced by the Intervenors fails to provide a rational basis for Proposition 8:

•Intervenors argue that maintaining the traditional notions of marriage being between a man and a woman is a rational reason for Prop 8. Judge Walker responds by citing a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case and says: “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law.” He went on to say:
Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

•Intervenors also argued that because same-sex marriage is such a sweeping social change, California has a rational basis to implement this change incrementally. In other words, it should be allowed to first offer domestic partnerships before marriage. Judge Walker rejected this argument, finding that “The process of allowing same-sex couples to marry is straightforward, and no evidence suggests that the state needs any significant lead time to ntegrate same-sex couples into marriage.
•Losing touch with reality, Intervenors’ next absurd argument is that the state has a rational basis to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples because they’re better parents and the state should promote procreation within an opposite-sex marriage. Judge Walker easily dismisses this drivel by finding that the evidence proves: “(1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents.
•Going further afield into crazyland, Intervenors next argue that the state has a rational basis in protecting bigots rights to take away rights from people they don’t like. Holding in his laughter, Walker responds: “Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.” Can we get a Hallelujah!
•Intervenors next argue that there’s a rational basis in calling different things by different names. They argue that it would be an administrative burden to have the same name for both opposite and same-sex unions. And imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone said that they were married and you later discovered they were a GAY! Judge Walker responds: “Proposition 8 actually creates an administrative burden on California because California must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples to provide the equivalent rights and benefits afforded to married couples.”
After rejecting each of the Intervenor’s arguments as to why a rational basis exists for Prop 8, Judge Walker went on to find that in the absence of a rational basis, it is safe to assume that Prop 8 exists because some people just don’t like gays and lesbians:

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief hat a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is ot a proper basis on which to legislate.

One quote from the decision that really sums up the feelings of many who believe in equality is:

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (Quoting a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case)

The long and well-reasoned decision concludes with this short and sweet determination that the couples who challenged Proposition 8 are correct:

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

The elephant in the room is now the question of a stay. Yesterday, in anticipation of losing, the anti-equality Intervenors filed a motion asking the Court to stay its decision pending appeal. In other words, they argue that since an appeal is inevitable, the Judge should not enforce his ruling until after the inevitable appeal is exhausted. Judge Walker has not yet ruled on that motion. Even if Judge Walker denies the stay, the Intervenors will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to issue an immediate stay of the decision. In a case like this, a stay is very likely. It remains to be seen whether Judge Walker will grant the stay or if that issue will be decided by the Ninth Circuit.

*UPDATE* CNN is reporting that Judge Walker issued a stay. But there is no Stay Order in the Court’s docket as of this writing, only the motion by the Intervenors. I suspect CNN may have gotten ahead of itself and is publishing unconfirmed rumors. That being said, I think a stay is likely at some point (probably by the Ninth Circuit.)

*UPDATE* The Court just entered an Order shortening time for Intervenors’ motion to stay to be heard. Plaintiffs’ must file their opposition to the Intervenor’s motion to stay Friday, August 6th. The Court will decide the motion on the papers without a hearing. I suspect an order will issue very shortly after the opposition is filed, probably by Monday or Tuesday. In the interim (i.e. in the next few days until the Court rules on the Motion to Stay), the entry of the Judgment is temporarily stayed


Bolded is the part I found mst interesting....

I like the one that says something like:

"A recent California vote found that there is a 52% chance you're an idiot"

:giggle:

I am so happy for all you lovely Californians!!!!!!!

I want to be happy for all of us in the USA. May this decision soon be supported at the supreme court (US) level so that we all are free.

I will be there with you in spirit waving my freak flag high.
Smooches,
Keri

:cheer::happyjump::dance2::ellyphanty::ellyphanty: :ellyphanty::flyingpig::rose::LGBTQFlag::fireworks :

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...tion-decision/

Go vote and show Faux nuts that we support the decision.

How Will the Supreme Court Rule on Same-Sex Marriage?

Adam Winkler
Professor at UCLA School of Law



Wednesday's landmark decision by a federal court that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution begins to pave the way for an eventual Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. How will the Supreme Court rule?

When the California case was first filed by the all-star legal team of Ted Olson -- who argued Bush v. Gore for George W. Bush and then became his Solicitor General -- and David Boies -- who, ironically, represented Al Gore in the disputed presidential contest -- the leading gay rights organizations, joined by the ACLU, came out against the lawsuit. They shared Olson and Boies's goal of securing marriage equality, of course, but they feared what the conservative Roberts Court might do. A strong Supreme Court decision against gay marriage would create a precedent that would take decades to undo. With our society moving generally in the direction of more tolerance for gays and lesbians, activists wanted to wait a few more years before bringing a case to the high court.

But gay rights activists may have been too pessimistic about the current Supreme Court. It's true that the Roberts Court is conservative and that several Justices are unlikely to be open-minded about same-sex marriage, including the four most right-leaning Justices: Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. On the other side of the bench, there are four Justices likely to be favorable to Olson and Boies's argument that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Constitution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan (assuming she is confirmed).

As usual in the Supreme Court these days, the swing vote belongs to Anthony Kennedy. And there are several reasons to believe that Kennedy, though conservative on many issues, will vote with the liberals on this one. The Supreme Court has issued two major decisions dealing with gay rights over the past 15 years. Both decisions came out strongly in favor of gay rights -- and both were written by Justice Kennedy.

In one of those decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, which held that bans on consensual sexual activity among same-sex partners were unconstitutional, Kennedy wrote that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage" and other "family relationships." "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by" the Constitution. "Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes," Kennedy wrote, "just as heterosexual persons do."

These words suggest Justice Kennedy believes that gays and lesbians should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Of course, no right that heterosexuals enjoy is denied more often to gays and lesbians than marriage.

Justice Kennedy is also known to be the Supreme Court Justice most likely to vote in favor of expansive interpretations of individual rights. He's a libertarian, which means he almost always sides with the individual against the government. This has led him to vote in ways that liberals love and conservatives hate -- such as his vote to affirm Roe v. Wade -- and vice-versa -- such as his vote against government regulation of corporate speech. But it bodes well for the liberals in the same-sex marriage case.

Of course, no one can really predict what the Supreme Court will do. The same-sex marriage case will take years to reach the high court and, in the meantime, there may be turnover among the Justices. But so long as the question of marriage equality turns on Justice Kennedy's vote, Olson and Boies -- and those in the gay and lesbian community who are depending on them to win this case -- are in good hands.

Voting...voting...voting..... :thumbsup:

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

Congratulations, California.

I know it feels shitty that you all are having to do this state by state, but we had to do it province by province and I promise it works. I hate that it's taking this long, believe me. But you'll all get there.

Edited to add: The funniest comment I've read on the subject so far is "Somewhere in Alaska Sarah Palin is angrily reading the wrong words off of her hand."

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3950903_n.jpg

san luis obispo, ca.

we'll be on KSBY news at ten or eleven tonight, because I yelled "interview a family for gods sake"....and they did. Us. It was mostly our 17 year old daughter saying how happy today is, and when asked what she has to say to the people who feel sorry for her for having two moms? She said she feels sorry that they don't have the kind of love our family does: unconditional.

sigh.

:) This Texan has a little more hope again finally. I was in Cali when Prop 8 happened. You know what sucks? Working with people who voted against your rights, your relationship, your existence. I just so wish this could go to the Supreme Court at some point and we could have equal rights all over the damn place.

A girl can dream anyway.

You don't have to wish.

This was a Federal Ruling, and after they appeal in the 9th Circuit Court, they will head to the SCOTUS.

The language of Judge Walkers ruling is really a good foundation that paves the way there.

I wish we could watch you on TV...maybe someone can youtube it for all of us?

or mebbe something retro like..

if this ban's a-rockin.... :dance2::dance2::dance2:

heh :rofl:

I tried to watch the stream but I kept getting distracted by our news and I must have missed it. :(

Huh?


_________

California Prop 8 opinion

Full text of decision link: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry%20Trial%20Decision.pdf--------------------

Article about opinion- from HOME / jurisprudence : The law, lawyers, and the court.

A Brilliant Ruling: Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010, at 9:27 PM ET

Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutionalJudge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy.

Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words?

But for all the lofty language about freedom and morality, nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today. Indeed, the whole point of this legal exercise—the lengthy trial, the spectacularly detailed finding of facts (80 of them! with subheadings!)—was to pit expert against expert, science against science, and fact against prejudice.

It's hard to read Judge Walker's opinion without sensing that what really won out today was science, methodology, and hard work. Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn't much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" and then putting on almost no case.

Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."

Then come the elaborate "findings of fact"—and recall that appellate courts must defer far more to a judge's findings of fact than conclusions of law. Here is where Judge Walker knits together the trial evidence, to the data, to the nerves at the very base of Justice Kennedy's brain. Among his most notable determinations of fact, Walker finds: states have long discriminated in matters of who can marry; marital status affects immigration, citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules, and benefits programs; that individuals do not choose their own sexual orientation; California law encourages gay couples to become parents; domestic partnership is a second-class legal status; permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, or otherwise screw around. He found that it benefits the children of gay parents to have them be married and that the gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. He found that Prop 8 puts the force of law behind a social stigma and that the entirety of the Prop 8 campaign relied on instilling fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay. (Brand-new data show that the needle only really moved in favor of the Prop 8 camp when parents of young children came out in force against gay marriage in the 11th hour of the campaign.) He found that stereotypes targeting gays and lesbians have resulted in terrible disadvantages for them and that the Prop 8 campaign traded on those stereotypes.

And then Walker turned to his conclusions of law, finding that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Is that the end of it? Oh, no. Judge Walker is already being flayed alive for the breadth and boldness of his decision. The appeals road will be long and nasty. Walker has temporarily stayed the ruling pending argument on a stay. (Rick Hasen argues it may be wise for him to stay the order pending appeal for tactical reasons.) Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact.
http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/
__________________

I posted this in the Breaking News thread.. thought I'd post it here, too. I'm feeling good about how Walker's opinion is getting good peer reviews. seems this is way important for all the appeals that will begin.

[QUOTE=betenoire;168352]Congratulations, California.

I know it feels shitty that you all are having to do this state by state, but we had to do it province by province and I promise it works. I hate that it's taking this long, believe me. But you'll all get there.

Edited to add: The funniest comment I've read on the subject so far is "Somewhere in Alaska Sarah Palin is angrily reading the wrong words off of her hand."[/QUOTE]

This is priceless!!

It sure is a great day here in CA!!! WOOT!!!

I have to love this headline from USAToday.

Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It's not about you

Included in the article:

I'm sure those with strong fundamentalist religious feelings won't see the logic of the Judge, but it's a matter of equality under the Constitution, not about religion.

Geez. Now all you need is a clause that says that Churches won't be forced to perform the marriages if the congregation doesn't support it and y'all will sound like a bunch of Canadians! :blink: :canadian:

as usual, worth the time to watch
 

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."


"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."



Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_671018.html

I have no doubt our government will protect those religious institutions that insist they are superior to all others.

Our current president supports a separate but equal (civil unions) for gay Americans, he does not support equal marriage. His basis for this is of course, his religious beliefs.

What does this say about those religious insitutions that do support and perform equal marriages? And more important, what does it say about a President who has sworn to uphold the US Consitution when he denies equal rights to Americans based on his religious beliefs?

At one time, as Senator, Obama did explicitly support marriage equality but then flipped his position to only supporting civil unions.

I'll go see if I can find the quote.

ETA (correction): It was in his race for Senator that he voiced his support for same sex marriage.

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."


From the WCT's press release:

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]

This answer is among those included in this week's Windy City Times feature on Obama's evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.

During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.

Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspaper's archives.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_157656.html

And this morning on MSNBC, David Axelrod reiterated the President's support for separate but equal civil unions and not equal marriage.

I'd like to ask the President to support the US Constitution which includes the 14th amendment. His religious beliefs do not trump my consitutional rights.

Opinions Requested--Could this Repeal Actually Happen?
 

I found this poster's comment on HuffPo and wanted to know what you think:

DCmykl 4 hours ago (6:36 AM)

Here's something to consider. Remember laughing when you heard about the Republicans wanting to repeal the 14th Amendment? Immigration, Gay marriage, womens' reproductive rights, and more all intersect at the 14th Ammendment.

The attack on the 14th Ammendment has nothing to do with immigration. That's a smoke screen designed to keep attention off the real agenda.

Section 1. of the 14th Amendment contains among other things this language: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This includes what are commonly known as the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the Constitution. These are FUNDAMENTALS.

My suspicion is the Republicans are more interested in getting rid of the "due process" and "Equal Protection" clauses than "anchor babies," and hope to do so while the public is distracted by the illegal immigration issue.

By getting rid of these cornerstones of civil rights they eliminate Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage and everything else they hate. In the past three days 90 of the 198 Republicans in the House – 45-percent – have signed on as co-sponsors of a bill to repeal the 14th Amendment. This is not something to be taken lightly. We need to prepare for a major fight.