UPDATE: Prop 8 Decision – Unconstitutional!

The widely anticipated decision on the Proposition 8 trial in the CA “Perry vs. Schwarzenegger” case about the legality of gay marriage in CA will be decided today.  You may recall that CA allowed gay marriage due to a Supreme Court of CA decision for a brief period of time from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008 , only to have the voters decide to rescind it.  In a strange legal partnership, prominent attorneys David Boies & Ted Olson (of Bush v. Gore) fame took on the case to throw out Proposition 8.  Today between 3:00 and 4:00 the Federal Court will announce its decision on the case according to AFER – the Americans for Equal Rights Foundation.

A rally will be held in Madison starting at 5:00 at State and Johnson Streets according to the GLAAD Blog.  There are no listings for other locations around the state at this time.

To get a text message on the Judge’s ruling you can text “Equal” to 69866.

In a 138 page ruling, the Federal Court under Judge Walker has ruled Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.   He had this to say according to The Wall Street Journal:

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The Proposition 8 supporters have vowed to file an appeal with the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals and to  take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.   You can see excerpts of his ruling in this article from the Los Angeles Times.

You can support your gay and lesbian friends and/or your relationships by signing this open petition at AmericaBlog to Barrack Obama seeking his support for marriage equality.


Related Articles

23 thoughts on “UPDATE: Prop 8 Decision – Unconstitutional!

  1. How did the judge define “gay marriage”? Is one allowed to marry more than one person? If not, why not?

  2. You know very well that the judge could only rule on prop 8 and the evidence presented in court. So polygamy isn’t something that could even be considered in this case.

    1. Fine, but then why aren’t those anti-prop 8 folks fighting for equality for all?

        1. Who cares if it is or isn’t? What does genetics have to do with marriage? Either you are for letting people do whatever they want or you aren’t. Are you drawing the line of bigotry at some notion of a genetic predisposition to marriage?

          1. I’m just wondering why you think allowing two people who love each other to get married is such an awful thing. After all, if we’re a society based on the notion that “all men are created equal,” then why would we enshrine inequality as the law of the land?

              1. Because polygamy has been illegal for years and the prohibition on polygamy has never been ruled unconstitutional.

                1. The pro-gay marriage folks aren’t basing their call for “equal rights” based on something being illegal or unconstitutional, so why use that basis for polygamy?

                  Who cares if polygamy was illegal for years. We had slavery for years too. And just because it hasn’t been challenged in court, doesn’t mean it’s not a valid choice.

              2. I’m just wondering why you arbitrarily pick and choose which rights some citizens should have but others should be denied.

                1. Sounds like that’s what you are doing too. Picking out rights for gay marriage, but not the same rights for more than two. Sounds arbitrary to me.

                  1. I don’t see how it is arbitrary. Gays could not marry simply because they were gay. This ruling clears the way for gays to marry. A right they didn’t have before. And you are talking about polygamy, which would expand on the rights of straight people to marry more than one person.

                    Why don’t we focus on giving EVERYONE the SAME rights first before we start taling about expanding on already existing rights. I believe you are making straw man argument here.

              3. Actually, I’d prefer to see government get out of the marriage business all together. Civil unions for all and let the religious organizations decide who they will allow to marry or not marry…

                1. You might be on to something there Ed.

                  I think through the years traditionally marriage was designed for family stability and an orderly society for the purposes of raising children. Marriage simply for love is a farily modern concept.

          2. Forgive me for being obtuse but I was referencing the legal standard:

            Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 561 US __, 130 SCt 2971, No 08-1371 Slip Op at 23 (“Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in [the context of sexual orientation].”) (June 28, 2010) (citing Lawrence, 539 US at 583 (O’Connor, J, concurring)).

        2. It really doesn’t matter if sexual orientation is genetic, nor should it even matter if it can be changed (it’s certainly not a choice). Freedom and equality are things that in my opinion should be common sense. No law should exist without a clear reason for protecting people, and no “protecting religious people obsessed with others’ private lives from the horrors of there actually being people they can’t stand existing” doesn’t qualify as a legitimate reason in my opinion.

      1. Not just polygamy. By your so-called logic, they also should be calling for the right to engage in bestiality and incest.

        That has never been called for by anyone opposed to prop 8, or marriage equality. But it’s been heard time and time again the the doltish scaremongering performed by the people who got the referendum passed. It’s bogus. And you know it.

      2. I’d fight against any arbitrary bigotry. There’s a far larger step to polygamy as well. This is going from two people getting married… to two people getting married. The only thing it changes is the arbitrary rule that one must be a man and one must be a woman.

        Also, I can spin it just the same way as you do, because I know darn well the people that fight the hardest against marriage equality don’t want to stop at marriage equality. In places like Texas they want a police state that has the authority to break down bedroom doors and police private intimacy as well. This is about freedom, and one step towards breaking down some bigoted policies is a good thing.

        People made the EXACT same argument as you when opposing interracial marriage. Do you think states should have the right to ban interracial marriage?

      3. I’ll speak out against any arbitrary law that’s more about people being obsessed with others’ private lives than protecting anything.

        A completely unrelated example is any ordinance that tells someone how their house should be colored, etc. It’s no one’sbusiness than the private owner. Laws shouldn’t be there to please whatever whims the majority have. They should only exist when necessary to protect. If people want to tell people how others’ private property is allowed to look they should move to one of those planned communities with a control-freakish homeowner’s association. I applaud the people who paint their houses with polka dots or whatever just to tick the anti-freedom control freaks off.

        1. FYI: Goverment tells people all the time what they can and can’t do with their private property and homes.

Comments are closed.