Congratulations to our gay and lesbian friends on the landmark decision that obliterated Proposition 8, the first time a Federal Court has ruled that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry isn unconstitutional. We join all people who support human rights in celebrating your hard-faught and well-deserved victory.
Judge Vaughn Walker’s 136-page ruling against Proposition 8 amounted to a ringing defense of the institution of marriage. It does enjoy a "culturally superior status" to domestic partnerships, he wrote. It does bond couples – and families – in a meaningful way, the evidence showed. It is a fundamental right, he declared.
Thus, the U.S. district judge found no rational basis for denying this fundamental right to same-sex couples.
Walker said the evidence showed that Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage was "premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." Such beliefs are "not a proper basis" to legislate, even when originated by voters, he found.
Even before the ruling, no one expected Walker’s judgment to be the final word. This case is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Still, the strength of the arguments in this ruling has set the bar high for justices who might be inclined to overturn it. He was particularly pointed in unmasking the Prop. 8 proponents’ thin rationalizations of this vestige of discrimination. Walker found the pro-8 side presented "no credible evidence" that same-sex marriage would have any adverse effect on the state’s interests… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <San Francisco Chronicle>
Because the issue has personal significance for her, Rachel Maddow’s coverage is outstanding. Here are all three of her clips.
In the first she discusses the ruling and interviews Legal Correspondent, Dahlia Lithwick.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In the second, she interviews David Bolls and Ted Olson. The attorneys in opposition to Proposition 8.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In the third she exposes the weakness of the proponents’ case and the absurdity of their witnesses.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Can you believe that most of their testimony referred back to George Rekers, cofounder of Family Research Council with James Dobson, and rentboy.com client?
Of course this is not over. I expect the Ninth Circuit to affirm the decision, and if SCOTUS opts to hear it, a 5-4 win, because Kennedy has a track record for supporting LGBT rights.
I look forward to the final celebration.
18 Responses to “Celebrating a Great Gay Day!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
80 decisions made as basis of fact are going to be hard for the SCOTUS to undermine. Maybe it is time to start looking for a new minority to hate. (Finally) I say we go after Mel Gibson next. We could remove his citizenship even though he was born here, but that would open the door to harass every asshole and politicians as a rule defend their own belt(way) buddies.
LOL Mark! Good idea! 😉
TC
You have a lot more faith than I in the Supreme Court. I don’t even think we have a 50/50 chance on this one.
Tim, as I see it the fascist four, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will stand against the Constitution. Stevens/Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor will stand for the Constitution. That leaves Kennedy as the tie-breaker.
I’m not so sure either. You would think equal rights would be a given considering our Constitution and the experience we have had with discrimination, but with this Court, I will not bet on it.
Tom, please see my reply to Tim.
“Moral disapproval” is the operating principle of the entire radical right in its agenda to deny rights to others. It was at the root of alcohol prohibition and is also the facade behind many of our drug prohibition laws. A medical issue was twisted into a legal and moral issue by Big Money interests. It is behind the culture war of the Right against Islam, or any other non-white American institutions. An example is Limbaugh’s “Moral disapproval” and declaration that the NAACP the “most racist organization ever”.
Dave, I agree. It all comes down to Republicans attempting to force their bigotry on the nation.
Judge Walker’s decision is a masterfully crafted Ruling, clearly aimed at Justice Kennedy. It contained seven citations to Kennedy’s 1996 opinion in Romer v Evans (which struck down an anti-gay ballot initiative in Colorado) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v Texas (striking down Texas’ gay-sodomy law).
Clearly Judge Walker knew exactly what SCOTUS swing voter he was aiming for.
There are two very readable legal evaluations that layout the framework on Walker’s brilliance. One by Andrew Koppelman (John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University), here (and it was cross-posted at The New York Times):
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/08/turning-trial-judges-weakness-into.html
Or for an even more literary approach to the legal nuances, Dahlia Lithwick (JD, Stanford) at Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2262766
Like Prof. Koppelmann says:
Thanks Nameless. That’s great info, and I agree. Such an opinion would be more obtuse than Angle.
Rachel did a great job with the whole case summarization. Congrats to all gays who want to marry! Given how shitty the case was for the other side, I think even the SCOTUS will have to approve this.
I agree, Lisa. This one was a no brainer from the start, but that never seems to bother Republicans.
Come on, folks.
Not even one little boy to say the Solon has no clothes?
Nope, but his pols sure got great jobs!
Really TC…. this is the best blog post I’ve seen covering this. So… Kudo’s dude! I’ve put it up around the place…. LOL TY
YVW, Gwen. Thank you for being such a sweetheart! 🙂
While we know the Drab Four have little to no affinity for contemporary American ideals, there is that pesky 14th Amendment to consider. It will take quite a bit of contortion on Scalia’s part to withhold equal protection on the basis of “moral inferiority” or any other reason he can hatch. That’s not to say he won’t try, of course. But his rigorous and rigid reading of the Constitution gives him very little wiggle room.
And there’s also the political problem of reversing the decision of a GHWB appointee who was initially put forth by St. Ronnie of Hollywood. I’m going to trust the stellar alignment on this one and then deal with my disappointment and anger if it doesn’t hold. However it ends up, we couldn’t have begun this trek to SCOTUS with a stronger ruling or better circumstances.
SF, that’s exactly how I see it. I think this one is a done deal, but if SCOTUS does overturn it, we’re going to have one very pissed off progressive base.