Breaking: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional! (Video)

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling says, in part, "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."


"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released this statement: “Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

California Attorney General Jerry Brown says via FaceBook: "A great day for all Californians. Justice Walker shares my belief that Prop 8 is unconstitutional."

Not so fast guys and gals! Don't go shopping for that perfect Vera Wang gown just yet. The Prop 8 proponents have been granted a stay that was filed last night when it became clear their side would lose. The ruling will not go into effect until possibly as late as October, so they can prepare an appeal. The reasoning is that they could be another window where gay and lesbian couples could get married only to have to marriages ruled invalid if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Prop 8.

Stay tuned, folks. This ain't over by a longshot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• BREAKING: Prop. 8 is unconstitutional (americablog.com)
• Judge Vaughn Walker Prop 8 Decision To Be Released August 4 (nowpublic.com)
• Prop 8 Decision: Judge's Ruling Ready In California Gay Marriage Case (huffingtonpost.com)

California's Prop 8 Trial, Day 1

Image via Wikipedia

Opening arguments and testimony began Monday morning in federal court in San Francisco in the challenge to overturn California's Proposition 8 on the basis that it violates the US Constitution's guarantee to equal protection. Due to a US Supreme Court challenge by the pro-H8 side to Judge Walker's decision to record and post the proceedings on YouTube, no video is yet available. Justice Kennedy is expected to render his decision in the matter on Wednesday.

The pro-H8 side argues that witnesses may feel intimidated if their faces are shown to the world during testimony. Personally, I think it's a simple case of cowardice the knowledge that they have a weak case. If you can't stand proudly and publicly for what you believe in, maybe it's because deep down, you know your beliefs are wrong and their validity can't stand up to public scrutiny.

So, dear readers, pending tomorrow's decision, we have to depend on the hard work and dedication of our LGBT bloggers, who are on the scene in the courthouse and typing their little fingers off to keep us informed with the latest testimony. The best coverage that I've found is coming from FireDogLake.com's Teddy Partridge. Reading through the transcript yesterday, it felt like homosexuality itself was on trial.

In his opening statements, Ted Olson, representing the anti-H8 side said, "This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied the right to marry, described by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the U.S.) as one of the most vital personal rights pursuant to the right to the pursuit of happiness, intimate choice, expression of emotional support, the exercise of spiritual unity, the highest expression of self. It is the most important right in our society."

Following is part of the exchange between Olson and Judge Walker that took place in during Olson's opening statements:

Olson: Marriage promotes economic, mental, physical strength. It is the building block of our society.


Olson: Prop 8 ended this dream for thousands of California citizens, even though the SCOCA had defined marriage as a fundamental right, then voters slammed the door.

Olson: The plaintiffs are two LOVING COUPLES in deeply committed, longstanding, intimate relationships.

Walker: Are the plaintiffs not registered domestic partners?

Olson: We will present them and they will tell you.

Walker: What disability do they operate under b/c they can’t marry? Are these differences of a legal nature? Is this a product of state action or of society?

Olson: What the state has done is sanctioned and labelled a formal relationship called domestic partnership which has nothing to do with love. The other relationship, marriage, is now reserved for opposite sex couples. CA has put people into categories.

Walker: Does Prop 8 classify people?

Olson: Yes, it does. There are now FOUR categories of Californians, and that matters a great deal.

Olson: Domestic partnerships are lesser and not the same as marriage.Witnesses recounted the every day discrimination they felt in being told by the state that they are less than heterosexuals.

Olson pointed out, "only opposite-sex couples over 62 years old can enter into domestic partnerships in CA."

Olson went on to outline how the state now categorizes marriage into four classes, including those who married during the window of opportunity between the Ca. Supreme Court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and the overturning of that ruling by popular vote: "opposite-sex, including the incarcerated. Two: those 18,000 who married during the window but cannot remarry if widowed. Three: people married elsewhere who until 1/1/10 had marriages not recognized by the state. Fourth, the people we represent, who cannot now marry."

I'll be brining the laptop to work today and will post updates as I am able.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Groundbreaking gay marriage trial for Calif. (msnbc.msn.com)
• Gay-Marriage Trial Starts in Calif. (online.wsj.com)
• Video: Conservative & Gay Rights Attorney, Ted Olson, on Prop 8 (laist.com)
• BREAKING: Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of Prop 8 Appeals Trial ** (crooksandliars.com)
• Prop. 8 trial, Perry vs Schwarzenegger kicks off (trueslant.com)
• Robin Tyler: Notes From the First Plaintiff in Tyler v. The State of CA (huffingtonpost.com)