California can begin gay marriages again, judge says

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling throwing out California's ban on same sex marriage also says that gay marriage can again proceed.

"California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result. California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings," he wrote.

It's unclear, however, whether his ruling will be stayed until a higher court can hear the matter, which is expected.

[Updated at 3:30 p.m.:The federal judge who on Wednesday afternoon declared California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional has temporarily stayed his order until Friday, giving Prop. 8 backers time to file appeals and seek a long-term stay. The decision would appear to delay any resumption of gay marriage in the state. Officials in L.A. County and West Hollywood said they were studying the ruling before deciding whether to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses again. Prop. 8 backers have vowed to appeal the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.]

Walker also said Proposition 8 treated straight couples as "superior" to gay ones.

"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," the judge wrote. "Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal-protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8."

The judge also ruled that the ban on gay marriages should be lifted.

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

-- Rong-Gong Lin II

Comments

[Hermann Kepfer]

A Federal Right to Marriage based on the 14th Amendment?

I don't see it; anyway marriage could never be a Federal Right as it pertains to common law (States Rights) -the judge was must have been exercising his Proposition 215 rights.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[SL]

The US that I know id dead. We are sinner at all. Jutice is playing God now.

[RS]

At last...religion is out of the bedroom!

[Susana Benavidez]

I hope equality prevails; I want to live in a country that respects or at least does not encroach on the rights of others.

I want my children to grow up in a country that upholds what is just in the eyes of the law - not what the majority deems moral or immoral.

It was not long ago that bi-racial marriage was illegal (and highly punishable) and that was decided by the majority of the people. I would not leave that up to a vote today for fear that the right for bi-racial marriages to exist would be revoked. Why should we leave same-sex marriage up to the will of the people? So that they can continue to impose their religious and social values on the rest of our countrymen due the sheer volume of ignorance? I think not.

[O.G. US]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ooooh, this is that equality part!

[thomasAlex]

Congrats! Another Judge upholds the US Constitution! @SL, Sorry you don't believe in the US Constitution.

[K.]

@SL : No one wants to live in this injustice-based US you cling to so ineloquently.

[Rocco]

It's the right decision, but it will be stayed at this point. Kind of ironic that the party that wants less government is only too happy to tell others how to live. Live and let live, keep on praying to your God, and try putting forth more love to the world.

[NotAHater]

"The US that I know id dead. We are sinner at all. Jutice is playing God now."

No one says you have to stay.

[shadow_man]

Woooooooo! Grats to California! Down with bigotry! Down with hate! Down with discrimination! Down with racism!

See each other in love and equality.

[Shadow_Man]

Woooooooo! Grats to California! Down with bigotry! Down with hate! Down with discrimination! Down with racism!

See each other in love and equality.

[yawar]

This is great news. Everyone deserves the same rights and protections!!

[Blessings of Liberty]

Equality under the law is great.
Marriage itself is overrated.

[Lumi]

Why do people want to get married? It too much of an hassle anyway. But it's a solid decision, if gay couples want to marry let them at it.

[Concerned Citizen]

Do we truly live in a democracy when activist judges can undo the will of the people to suit their personal preferences!

[cmthrasher]

Its about time a Federal court exercised its common sense and stood up to defend the constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is to protect minorities from the majority, NOT to put minorities fundamental rights up for a popular vote as occurred in California with Prop 8.

Good for you Judge Walker!

[kristin]

This issue will be going all the way to the Supreme Court, and regardless of the legal outcome, this issue will be around for a long time.

[Dave]

I wonder how many people realize that California already gave the exact same benefits and rights to gay couples under civil unions? The argument that this is about equal rights and due process is silly because the original judge that started this debacle explicitly wrote that they saw no difference in benefits between marriages and civil unions.

This case is entirely about one thing: gay couples in CA want to use the term "marriage". This is a fact. It's purely a culture war, it's not about equal benefits/rights. And the judge stepped into it.

[thebob.bob]

The Facts:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

[hf2hvit]

"Do we truly live in a democracy when activist judges can undo the will of the people to suit their personal preferences!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | August 04, 2010 at 02:51 PM "

This is NOT a true democracy. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. Maybe, if you knew enough about the country that you claim is yours only, you would understand the system.

[jay]

HATE IS EVIL!!!

[Zach]

Hey Concerned Citizen, let me restate that question:

"Do we truly live in a free country when religious activists can use mob hysteria to undo Constitutional protections to suit their personal preferences?"

Let me say, I do think this might be a mistake to allow the marriages to begin again...but his reasoning that there's no actual harm in doing so is sound. 18,000 people did it and nothing changed, after all.

[MultipleWives]

Nobody has been able to answer this for me...so please help...

Now that this has been overturned by this judge, I have one question...why stop here??? Why can't I have two wives? Shouldn't my beliefs of wanting to have two spouses be protected as well? Why discriminate against me for what
I believe?? Now that California has said that everyone should be treated equally, why not Polygamy next?

Just like Susana said below...

I hope equality prevails; I want to live in a country that respects or at least does not encroach on the rights of others.

I want my children to grow up in a country that upholds what is just in the eyes of the law - not what the majority deems moral or immoral.

[David]

"Do we truly live in a democracy when activist judges can undo the will of the people to suit their personal preferences!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | August 04, 2010 at 02:51 PM "

Dear Concerned:

Are you that ignorant of our system of government? According to your theory, the majority could do anything it wanted to any minority as long as it was voted on. The federal Constitution was explicitly designed to thwart the will of a vengeful or misguided majority. Prop 8 wasn't constitutional under that design, and consequently, struck down as a violation of the rule of law. Under your vision, majority rule trumps all--including the rights guaranteed under the constitution. You should have listened in high school civics class.

[bhood]

"I wonder how many people realize that California already gave the exact same benefits and rights to gay couples under civil unions?"

Yeah, separate but equal, right? Heard that before.