Last two Paragraphs of Judge Vaughn Walker-
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.FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
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.
Yea!
6 comments:
to which I add my own favorite quotes from the opinion.
The evidence does not support a finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.
[T]he evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state.
Echos of David Brooks: "We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on [it]."
1) The court confirmed what Myk, Peter, and others have been saying, marriage is not a religious issue, it is a state issue. (i.e. states issue marriage licenses)
2) I listened to what Rush Limbaugh had to say about the ruling, and, strangely, his rant was on states' rights. He read from Madison's Federalist Papers. He was going on about how the Obama administration wanted to destroy the country. I didn't understand how a California state court ruling meant the loss of states' rights.
Trying to understand Rush is a losing proposition
I hate to pull everyone up short in this discussion where I otherwise agree, but the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case was decided by a federal judge -- declaring Prop 8, an amendment to Califiornia's constitution, in violation of the federal constitution. But, if you're thinking about the earlier decision when the California State Supreme Court said that Prop 22 -- which merely enacted a statute -- violated the state constitution, you would be correct.
But what's interesting here is that the judge in the Perry case is Vaughn Walker, a Republican appointed by George H.W. Bush. And here's the payoff. Walker was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan two years ealier. But two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, were able to stall his nomination in committee and he was never confirmed. The asserted reason for the opposition: his alleged "insensitivity" to gays.
"Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened." Thomas Hardy
Ah, thanks, that makes more sense. I didn't get that from reading the new accounts. My mistake.
I did understand Pete's joke though.
Post a Comment