It's only freshly spawned, it's full abilities have not yet awakened. We must settle this before they do, lest it moves on to begin a colony of it's own.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Gay couples waved rainbow and American flags and erupted with cheers in the city that has long been a magnet for gays.
Shelly Bailes embraced her wife Ellen Pontac as Bailes held a sign reading, "Life Feels Different When You're Married."
In New York City, about 150 people gathered in front of a lower Manhattan courthouse. They carried signs saying "Our Love Wins" as organizers read portions of the ruling.
Walker made his decision in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.
The ruling "vindicates the rights of a minority of our citizens to be treated with decency and respect and equality in our system," said former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who delivered the closing argument at trial for opponents of the ban.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also praised the ruling as an important step toward equality and freedom.
Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defense team.
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. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.
The appeal would go first to the 9th Circuit then to the U.S. Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "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," the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.
He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.
"Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker wrote.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
The plaintiffs presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.
Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.
Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.
Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."
In an unusual move, the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.
That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.
He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.
Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.
While I am all for letting anyone marry anyone they goddamn well please, I was surprised to learn that a lone federal judge had the power to overturn the law that 7 million people voted for >_>
The vote itself was unconstitutional, you shouldn't need a consensus by all the justices to decide whether or not specifically limiting the rights of one group is wrong or right. Judges can overturn jury decisions if they feel there was a significant and obvious miscarriage of justice.
The majority of people in the 1950s vehemently opposed interracial marriage, and it took a Supreme Court ruling to force states to recognize it. Sometimes the populace is wrong, and if it doesn't have the logic to back up what it wants, then the courts can step in.
True enough, but I just didn't expect them to have that power to do it outta the blue. I mean I like the outcome of it obviously.
I was under the impression that someone had to sue or bring the case to court, but I guess someone did. In the articles I read I never saw anything about a lawsuit but due to the massive size of this I suppose there was one filed somewhere. Basically the question is: Can federal judges override/throw out any state law they want without a lawsuit or does it require someone to actually file something?
I think gay people should feel outraged. Californians were sensible enough to stop their State from stepping into something as private as "marriage" (or union or whatever you want to call it) towards their group. Why the heck would you want the State to marry you? is it because of the social and fiscal benefits? Then why should those benefits exist in the first place? Aren't they discriminatory against single people? The reasonal answer is to stop statal marriages altogether, not to create new ones.
Agreed, But the populace was arguing the "sanctity" of marriage. Eliminating it entirely, especially when so many falsely think of America as a "Christian Nation" would enrage the masses even further, and unnecessarily at that.
Insurance, retirement, health care (deciding what to do if your spouse is incapacitated), etc. Alot of private companies give you discounts/different stuff if you are married.
I think you're thinking way too big, Rob, and to say that gay people should be outraged is a little silly. I too think that, in the grand scheme of things, the best option would be to either remove religion from legal marriages or eliminate potentially unfair advantages given to married people. But to say that gay people should be rooting for a gay marriage ban takes it a bit far. I think stopping practices that discriminate by sexuality should be the first goal... people can work on separating church and state from marriage later.
I'm afraid you've already proven yourself to be slightly biased towards the heterosexual lifestyle. If you were impartially bisexual, you would have made a baby with another man as well.
Comments
Also I hear mario is very slow when it comes to setting execution dates. You could be waiting a long time on that one.
NOOOOOOOO!!! IT'S IN MY HEAD! IT'S IN MY HEAD! IT'S IN MYA;SOIERALSDKFJASL;DFJASDFASLKJ
Someone else do it!
On a sidenote, a friend of a friend has (or used to have) two titi monkeys. He was selling them for about USD 50 a piece.
OOOH! Let me! I don't mind! *chop* *chop* *chop*
All done. Thank god it still looked like Ryan. That made it much easier.
Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban
I was under the impression that someone had to sue or bring the case to court, but I guess someone did. In the articles I read I never saw anything about a lawsuit but due to the massive size of this I suppose there was one filed somewhere. Basically the question is: Can federal judges override/throw out any state law they want without a lawsuit or does it require someone to actually file something?
The judge who threw out Prop 8 is gay, people whine, hilarity ensues.