Federal judge to rule on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry [Updated]

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard myriad witnesses testify about the history of marriage, the nature of homosexuality and the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system during the 2 1/2-week trial in January.

Most of the testimony favored marriage rights for homosexuals. Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Los Angeles-based group funding the litigation hired former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, to represent two couples who are challenging Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in an historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Walker will decide whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[Bluerate]

Marriage Equality!

[halapeno]

Regardless of how this judge rules it will end up in the US Supreme Court and I think everyone understands how that court will rule given its current makeup.

[misanthropicus]

Corrupt judge, corrupt process, corrupt media. Walker will certainly rule against prop 8 - and his mimmicking a period of reflection and analyzis of this matter is disgusting, since from the very beginning it was clear that he will pursue his personal views in this matter - as Kagan will do at a later time. Gross -

[Tom]

No means NO! My 3 year old get it, It's time you folks get it too...now take your toys and go home. Thanks.

[timber]

This is about the rights of all, tax paying hardworking Americans or not so hard working, we are guaranteed these rights. keep the nature of homosexuality out of it. I am a lesbian, and frankly that is usually would be none of anyone's biz.

[Johnathan]

It is against the first amendment to deny marriage because it respects a particular religion and their views.

Marriage is often defined as a legal union. Since when do religions get to say what is legal in a secular state?

And do not say religion did not influence the decision to ban homosexual marriage. Religious organizations poured money into Prop 8.

[guinnessman]

I believe that we need to legalize gay baptism first and then other religious ceremony first.

[william kraal]

LETS HOPE THAT NOW WE WILL GET EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS, GAY/ STRAIGHT AND IN BETWEEN!

[Carlo]

Why should the government have anything to do with marriage at all? It's a religious ceremony. If two people want to get married, go find a preacher and get married. If they want civilly united, go find a judge. The government should stay out of the entire thing.

[Cogito]

"Love is love!" That is exactly the problem. Most people love their pets, but that doesn't mean they can marry them.

This has been established as a States Right. See the Mass decision. The people of CA spoke, as did the State. A federal judge has no business being involved.

[Michael Shumaker]

Read the freakin' 10th ammendment your honor... the people have the right to pass whatever admmendments in the CA Constitution they please whenever the US Constitution falls silent. Please allow the voters of California this right and take your bench legislation elsewhere.

[don litterst]

This article was so confusing I can't even remember what side I'm on anymore!

[Oliver Wendel Holmes]

Interesting that Times did not report that the judge, Vaughn Walker, is an openly homosexual perv.

Gee, I wonder how he'll rule?

[Neil&Bob]

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

This the law, Gods law and no other law from any judge secular progressive or not matters.

[jonathan]

ban!!!

[jonathan]

marriage is between a woman and man!!!

[TheFuture]

Sorry conservatives, the future is coming. You should really learn to accept it, because in 20 years you're going to look like the people who fought desegregation.

[the electrician]

serving openly gay in the military is not good, the russians, chinese, egyptians,koreans, do not have gays int he military.There are countries who have tried this experiment of openly gays in the military and it did not work, israel, england,italy, france, etc..said that moral dropped and military enlistments dropped, and there where more attacks on these openly gays in the military...

[anthony]

I think its a good idea to let judges decide our freedom, I thought thats what voting was for in a democracy, on the issue of prop 8 the people have spoken. I personaly don't want some judge deciding my rights.

[TD]

Nice slant there author why don't you just go ahead and make the decision for him? Gays and Lesbians are not a class, race, ethnicity or any other defining characteristic of a person. Being gay is a lifestyle CHOICE. How do I know it's a choice? Because you still hear stories of married men and women with children deciding 20 years later they can't "keep living a lie" and "want to be me." That's a choice because they chose to ignore it, now they choose to embrace it. Good luck getting a brother to take the black off his skin, or getting a white to paint their skin green (See, no choice there). Also you can't make me a Nigerian no matter how much I desire that outcome (but if I wanted to be Gay, I certainly could, all it takes is the choice).

[Oliver Wendel Holmes]

psssstt......the judge is gay.....shhhhhhh.....can't let that slip out.......it'll ruin everything......

[Gawagaw]

This is all about Social Security survivor benefits and employer spousal benefits. It's about money, not what is right for society.

[Kevin]

"Equal Protection", or "Special Protection"?

Unless I am mistaken, they have every right under the current law to marry a person of the opposite sex. This is "equal protection", as they have the exact same rights as I do.

If Prop 8 is overturned by an activist judge legislating from the bench in order to confer a right to a specific subset of the population, this is a "special protection".

Beware the first tentative step onto a slipperly slope!

Which subset of the population would you like to give special rights to next? The ones who want to be romantic with your children? The ones who want to be romantic with your pets? The ones who want to be romantic with your lawn ornaments?

To be clear, I am -NOT- insinuating that homosexuals engage in any of the above, only pointing out that opening the door for special rights for one group may establish precedent for any and all others...

[JesusIsLord]

May God have mercy on us. California is modern day soddom... no wonder your economy is in shambles..you exalt wickedness

[Jeff L]

The vote of the people means nothing. It's in the hands of a single judge to decide. Wake up America, you are losing your freedoma and liberties!