Same-Sex Marriage Update

[SuperFemme]

do NOT turn on Faux News.

savor this moment. how sweet it is.

[Soft*Silver]

I am crying...I am so delighted its been termed unconstitutional to deny us the benefit of marriage!Congrats to your state...

[Cyclopea]

[theoddz]

...and all the Mormon money couldn't buy it otherwise!!!!

~Theo~

[SuperFemme]

praise harvey.

thank you to the real Jesus.
for the love you meant it to be.

[Manul]

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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 Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Praise the California Constitution.

[Manul]

Originally Posted by Manul

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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 Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Praise the California Constitution.

AND:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

[Rook]

Sweet Sweet Music to my ears...!!
I think my headache's gone ...

[Cyclopea]

Hahahahahaha

[Nawen]

Oh, YES!!!

Gotta go and spread the news in other parts of the world... YES!!!

[Linus]

So now it will go to Appeals and then onwards to the Supreme Court, maybe? Yes? And if it reaches Supreme Court and they say it's unconstitutional... Then finally, DOMA will be killed and it will become federal law?

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by softness

I am crying...I am so delighted its been termed unconstitutional to deny us the benefit of marriage!Congrats to your state...

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.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

do NOT turn on Faux News.

savor this moment. how sweet it is.

Oh, what a good point to make!! This is one time, I really want to be narrow minded and only hear/watch progressive program reports and analysis!

[SuperFemme]

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

Equal Rights = Equal Justice

[Soon]

[Gayla]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

All I can come up with is -

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

[Cyclopea]

"Love Triumphs Over H8te"

[Cyclopea]

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.

[UofMfan]

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.