Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban ”“ Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote.
Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, who heard the case without a jury, immediately stayed his decision pending appeals by proponents of Proposition 8, who confidently predicted that higher courts would be less accommodating than Judge Walker. But on Wednesday, at least, the winds seemed to be at the back of those who feel that marriage is not, as the voters of California and many other states feel, solely the province of a man and a woman.
“Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” wrote Mr. Walker. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
[blockquote] “Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” wrote Mr. Walker. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” [/blockquote]
The question is can marriage of anyone survive. Why should marrieds have any different privlileges than singles?
The lawyers are really going to be busy making money!
Not surprised in the least. A secular governmental system in the 21st century can’t deny equal protection to both OS and SS couples. Did anyone on here know that it is NOT ALLOWED for a man and a woman to register a Domestic Partnership in California? That’s unconstitutional, as well.
Appointed by President Geeorge H. Bush and according to Wikipedia is homosexual. Statmann
I would think being gay would be a conflict of interest for the judge.
By that logic, so would being a married and straight judge.
If you read a little further in the Wikipedia article, you will see that he was initially appointed by Ronald Reagan, but not confirmed at that time.
I should have said “nominated” by Ronald Reagan.
It will be interesting to see if they can come up with better material on appeal than what was presented in support of prop 8 this time. Some of the “experts” they brought in ended up making the other side look better.
Judge Walker is married to a woman and has three children. Check your facts people! In case you didn’t know, Wikipedia doesn’t count as “fact” since anyone can make up the information and post it on someone’s page there.
#10–Judge Walker is homosexual, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. You would think they wouldn’t say that unless they could back it up.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker
Also see here:
http://trueslant.com/KashmirHill/2010/02/09/the-outing-of-judge-vaughn-walker/
Clayton, before the Prop 8 proponents appeal this decision before they file an appeal before SCOTUS, let’s hope they find some legal experts who can come up with more convincing arguments in their favor. Otherwise, they might as well admit defeat. It would be worthwhile if they took more time the next time around, I’m sure.
The Court writes: “The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”
What the opinion actually does is not make the case for homosexual marriage, but actually makes the case for no marriage at all. All the reasons given for saying that there is no rational basis to limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, equally apply to singles and any number of people. This opinion, if upheld, signals the death of marriage in any form in this country.
Under the reasoning in this opinion it is just as arbitrary to limit marriage to two people whether they are hetero or homosexual and it is just as arbitrary to give marrieds any privileges that singles don’t get. It is also arbitrary to deny marriage to two brothers, two sisters or a brother and a sister, father and daughter and mother and son.
To graft homosexuals into marriage the way this opinion does is nothing more than justify preferring heterosexual and homosexual couples at the exclusion of all others. Under the rational of this opinion this is just as constitutionally infirm as was limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. This is really nothing more than special pleading.
#13’s comments relate closely, I think, to the attitude toward ‘partnering’ in the UK. However, they have not yet worked through the implication that the course they are pursuing could lead to a whole variety of domestic arrangements. Traditional marriage has certainly been devalued.
the problem lieis in considering marriage as a civil issue. The definitioin HAS changed only not the way the left wing supposes. The existence of civil partnerships creates a category deals with civil issues. This leaves marriage free to deal with its intrinsic nature, that it is a spiritual relationship. A couple takes vows. What are these if not declarations of a spiritual bonding? If this latter is the case, then civil government has no authority to deal with it for 1st Amendment reasons. How can this not be clear? Larry
The judge rules out “antiquated and discredited notions of gender” and says the state has no legitimate interest in the preservation of the institution of marriage. With one stroke he rules biology out of order, and also the institution within which responsible and non-criminal citizens are most likely to be raised. Jurisprudence gone mad.
And, if the obvious biological distinctions between male and female have no meaning, why does the number two have significance? In the defense of “gay” marriage he opens the door for the legalization of polygyny and group marriage.
#16, what does the age of 16 or 18 matter either, then? It’s just a number. Madness only begins to describe the total lack of logic in the ruling.
You’re right on that one, #17 Chris Molter. Under this way of thinking, all restrictions are arbitrary. Incest? Child marriage? These restrictions can all be reasoned away if the participants “feel” it’s right for them. Gay activists decry this criticism, but I don’t see how the “logic” of this judge’s ruling could be used to outlaw any combination of any number or kind.
After all, strict interpretation of the Qur’an and hadiths sanctions both polygyny and child marriage, and the breakaway Mormon groups, and some other cults, require plural marriage and the marriage of young girls to older men. If they feel this is right, what is the state’s interest, under this kind of ruling, in forbidding it? This sounds outrageous now, but logically, it’s quite possible.
In regards to age, the common law handmedowns of majority and minority haven’t yet been overturned and several case precedents hold to them, but they have been severly modified by legislators with poor understanding of the principles.
A few months ago after the General Convention I noticed several of the blogs (Not a scientific sampling) had comments about the defeat of conservative thought and triumph of the gay agenda(s). Interestingly, the comments were on how sad it was that we won; now conservatives would leave. Exactly. It wasn’t about winning anything. It was about degrading something, corrupting something *normal*. Once the corruption succeeded it somehow lost its charm. Here as well. “Marriage” isn’t the goal of gay activists, it is corruption of real marriage. Once that succeeds they’ll not “Get married” in droves, they’ll hunt around for something else to corrupt. Misery loves company, and if the company is denied, misery is more miserable. The miserable will make misery anywhere they see happiness and normalcy. It’s as old as war in Heaven, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.
The ruling to put it kindly is a mess. The judge’s reasoning is a perfect example of what happens when somebody becomes seduced by the elites of academia. These elites do not rely on true vigorous debate or on sharp eyed scholarship. They do not seek after the truth but only after opinions that reinforce their world view.
The judge is unaware of just how narrow and self congratulating the disciplines of psychology, sociology and even history have become. Acceptance of GLBT sex is a given and no one who rebels against that view is likely to have their papers or articles published in any peer reviewed journal. This makes it very hard for those who oppose GLBT to gain the credentials certifying them as experts in the courts’ eye.
More alarming to me is the undercurrent (and at times outright) hostility towards religious groups exercising their rights as citizens shown by the judge. I may have been reading too much into it but to me he was stating that any opposition that arises from a religious motive or belief is invalid and has no right to be expressed.
Perhaps I am an old cynic but a legal ruling that depends so much on how a law makes some people feel makes me want to go out and knock icecream cones out of little Billy’s hands. Instead I’ll just start a list of all the laws that make me feel bad.
One thing that is forgotten in the arguments of the pro gay marriage side is that the State did not decide on the nature of marriage. The marriage of one man and one woman or one man with several woman was formed first the Church and State only came along later to codify and protect marriage as it already existed. Gay marriage is an artificially man made constructed union that has more in common with financial and non sexual social partnerships than in marriage as it has developed in the majority of cultures. True marriage has a purpose far beyond self fullfillment or mutual affection of the partners.
Though it is unpopular to say this a very big part of marriage is for the civilization of the male by imposing both a soical and legal reason for him to curtail the biological urge to seek out many partners. It protects the woman by giving her a stable home to rear and care for their offspring. Most importantly it lets children see the importance and essential cooperation of both mother and father. Yes the roles have been muted and merged but you only have to see the sad results in the contemporary rejection of marriage as the ideal state to have sex and in which to rear children to see the truth in the still primary advantage of marriage.
I wish the church would do a better job talking about marriage for everyone. The spotlight is on us for this issue, we could be filling it with information on the blessings of a solid, committed Christian marriage. We have a microphone and all we’re talking about is complementary plumbing. Gender issues aside, we have a huge deep theology of marriage and love and when’s the last time you heard about it? If you google church marriage the top results are going to be about the gay marriage issue, or picking the right backdrop for your wedding. That’s who we are? Are we a bunch of grumps or banquet hall managers? Or are we the holders of the best model for a healthy and joyful life that God ever put on this planet?
ps – I love my wife.
One point that I have to think about is this so called “right”. Why, if getting married is a right, does the state have any regulation about it? If it requires a license from the state, then it must not be a right, but a privilege, like driving. If it is a right, like the right to vote, the state would not license you to do it nor charge you to do it. They also would not maintain records of it for legal purposes. Marriage is a privilege that has certain requirements before you can enter into it.
Well, drummie, we have the right to gun ownership (2nd Amendment), but states can put parameters around that (licensing, age requirements, etc.)
I agree entirely Clayton (#22). If we took Eph 5 seriously and the likes now of JP2’s [i]Theology of the Body[/i] and/or Cardinal Scola’s [i]Nuptial Mystery[/i] with anything like equal seriousness, then the Church/churches would have half a chance of turning this tide/tsunami around. As it is, ….