Big News: California Prop 8 Overturned
Just breaking now–
Big news: According to a source who has seen the 136-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Walker has ruled Proposition 8, the California voter-approved ban on gay marriage, unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.
This is great news! I’ll post more detail when I get it.
**Update** You can read the whole ruling here.
Excerpts:
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.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
Tags: California, Civil Rights, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage
Whether you are for or against, this judge should of recused himself.
It’ll be good to see how this plays out in the Supreme Court.
You are two steps away from the Supreme Court. The decision will first be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where this decision will likely be affirmed. Then it is on to the Supreme Court. The swing justice will be Anthony Kennedy, however, given the nature of this decision, the question before the court is whether marriage is a fundamental right. Two hundred and ten years of precedent holds that it is. Thus if marriage is a fundamental right, akin to the fundamental rights to vote, of privacy, and to interstate travel, it cannot be unequally withheld from a segment of the population under both the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The haters of this country are going to have to satisfy themselves with minding their own marriages rather than anyone’s elses.
If we had any conservatives worth the label, they’d be calling all over themselves for this victory for small government.
Good news!
Not really a victory for small government, but more for individual liberty.
Why should the judge have recused himself, Phil?
Yeah, I am aware of no conflict of interest that would require recusal.
Good news, indeed. Now, let’s legalize marijuana, and secure our borders.
Judge Vaughn is gay, that’s what the right wing is screaming about. Of course, wouldn’t a straight judge also be biased?
I’m sorry the judge’s name is Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker cites the 14th amendment in the decision. Talk about timely.
Yeah, I know, UI…was just wanting him to respond as such so I could light into him…LOL. Considering you’re either gay or you’re not, would it be fair to say, then, that straight judge should have recused him or herself in this case, because he or she would have OBVIOUSLY been just as biased? Of course, that question is to Phil, who likely won’t respond because he realizes how dumb his original statement was.
Mike, you’ve obviously been away from the blogs too long if you think people won’t write dumb defenses of the indefensible. Fox News is all over the “Judge Walker is gay, he should’ve recused” story.
So, let me get this straight (no pun intended), the right wing says that Judge Walker should have recused himself because he is gay, and because the Plaintiffs were gay. Interesting. And extremely bigoted. Because you would never argue that a straight judge should recuse himself when confronted with a straight Plaintiff or Defendant. The same goes for a white judge and white parties, or a black judge and black parties.
The right wing. So bitter. So bigoted.
A common sense decision if ever I read one.
Has there been a serious attempt to introduce a marriage equality bill in DE recently?
Actually I didn’t respond becuase I was doing other things. Ok, why he should of recused himself:
Judges recuse themselves from cases when they have a vested intrest in the outcome. He basically has something to gain.
Now before you jump to even further conclusions, I agree with the decision by the way. I just feel that it would of been good sense to avoid all the “right wing” screaming.
DD, you of course are going way to far; but I can see where you are coming from. It’s not the fact that both parties are gay, it’s the fact that the judge can and will personally gain from his own decision.
No action has yet been taken on relationship recognition/equality legislation in Dover. Let’s see how the elections go.
So, Phil… according to your logic, a woman judge of child-bearing age (or with daughters) should recuse herself from any case involving reproductive rights.
More from the ruling:
Double rainbow all the way, man!
Newt’s response to the Prop 8 ruling:
“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”
What a fucktard.
I love reading treatises on the sanctity of marriage from the serial adulterer twice-divorced Newt Gingrich. Thanks for explaining, Newt!
And Newt relies on the results of referendums. He must not know that in the United States of America, a majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. Indeed, in 1954, racial segregation would have definitely won a majority of the votes where it was practiced. But that fact does not make it right or constitutional.
just another example of a judge overturning the will of the people
Well, equality and justice prevail over hate once again. I was on my way home from DC when I heard the news and immediately called my partner. I think all of the cars on Route 50 could hear be whooping it up.
To those who claim that Judge Walker should have recused himself because he is gay, you’re just bigoted. Should a black judge recuse himself from civil rights cases because he “might have something to gain by the decision?” NO! Should a Jewish judge recuse himself from a freedom of religion case brought by other Jews? NO.
Judge Vaughn’s decision is in line with Romer v Evans where the SCOTUS overturned Colorado’s Amendment 2 which was approved by voters in an election. Amendment 2 prohibited any political subdivision within the state from passing anti-discrimination laws to protect gays and lesbians. It’s clear the courts have a right to review such amendments, and if they find that these referenda violate the US Constitution, as Judge Walker did today, then they make strike them down.
What these teabagging asshats fail to realize is that Judge Walker was originally nominated to the Court by Ronald Reagan and after his nomination stalled, was renominated by GHW Bush. He certainly wasn’t nominated because he was a liberal. He discharged his duty – he interpreted the Constitution based on law and precedent and on the arguments presented in court, and he ruled against hate.
So suck it anon. and Newt.
Please GOP…please make this a big election issue.
Anon., you cannot vote away a segment of the population’s rights. I mean, if we could do that, I would have spearheaded an effort to deport all those who voted for Bush to Iraq long ago.
here we go again with the TP’ers/conservatives screaming…
ok – which is it? the will of the people or the Constitution?? – you float both ways depending on your argument and cannot see that like most legal issues…it depends on the case or the argument
Therefore, the rights and protections, inherent in the Constitution cannot be voted away by the people, even a majority of the people (as it stands right now) – unless the Constitution is changed and ratified. It is that simple.
if that was the case then some states would have instituted state religions – if the people voted for them – but as you know they cannot do that…
so – do try to use your minds here – if it is a Right, protected by the Consitution and the Bills of Rights, the people cannot abridge it – therefore the majority cannot abridge the rights of the minority..
Of did the lessons of the Civil war get lost on you some where?? remember life, liberty and the persuit of happines? or is that only to be defined by those of you that have a straight moralistic view of life ( so the few then rule the others?)
I gotta love it – but TPers/Conservatives are in large part:
1.pro-marriage and family (but anti-gay marriage and family)
2. pro-life but pro death penalty (Okay….)
3. against big government but for individual liberties (unless you are gay)
4. Ok with the government in the bedroom – (ewww, you would want that?)
it sounds Schizophrenic to me – but there is a pill for that you know..
So DD, you would have sent all who voted for Bush to Iraq? Well a lot of who voted for Bush voted for Obama too so who would be president. Humans make mistakes, like them or not. Saying what you did this time reminds me of other times you want to do bad things to people. What does that make you? Any better or maybe the same?