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

[Dave]

Amazing how after the passage of Prop 22, Prop 8, and similar propositions in over 30 states the opinion of one Federal judge can flush them all down the toilet.

This is a perfect example where the opinion of the minority ruling class trumps the opinion of the majority public. Whatever happened to government by the people?

[Cameron]

You people have got to relax. Live and let live. How many of you aging yuppies who fought for freedom in the 60's are now fighting against it because you made a few bucks? What happened? You used to be cool man!

Anyway, no one's going to marry their pets, God is not going to rain fire and brimestone upon yee and it's not going to affect your lives in any little way. Get over it. Do you really want to be an embarassment to your grandchildren when you tell them the stories of how you fought hard to prevent equal rights?

Put down your pitchforks and relax. Your country has crippling debt, wars left right and centre, gun crime out the yang, and so on. I don't think a few married gays are going to alter your existence.

[sc]

Equal Protection Clause > Bigotry & Ignorance

[frank]

You people really need to take a very strong stern stand against this liberal judge if he over turns the will of the voteing people, You Voted And Won, That Should Be THe End Of It, We in new jersey won't put up with this sick noncense from these perverts, just look at all the damage they all did last time they lost in your city, and not one arrest of these queers, let them try that crap here and see how fast the jail's fill up, tell this judge to stick it, or you will all appeal it to the supreme court. Marriage is Between a Man And Woman, Period, anything else is accepting perversion, and don't let these dirty pigs take over your children's education either, by saying they have to learn Gay Sex as normal behavior

[Beez]

If the equal protection clause is used to overturn Prop 8, then the inescapable conclusion is that ANY form of marriage must be permissable: man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-woman-man, woman-woman-woman-woman, etc.

The only way for anything other than traditional marriage to make sense is for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. It also forces people to ask the question "why must I have sex with someone to share their property and benefits?"

Eliminate state-sanctioned marriage, and create a 'household contract' that allows any collection of people to form a household for the purposes of property and benefit sharing (which is then more fair for cohabitating siblings and any other non-sexual combinations of people). Put marriage back into private churches and clubs, where it can retain whatever sanctity it holds for that particular group.

[J.J.]

"The people of CA spoke, as did the State. A federal judge has no business being involved."

The courts exist to protect the rights of the minority. BTW, why did out-of-state groups work to get this to the voters? I thought that is the job of the legislators, who are elected by the voters of California to represent them.

[Philster]

So "gay marriage" is now legal?

Good- Elton John and Rosie O'Donnell can finally get married!

[nedclark]

Um..."TD" - a little news-flash for ya...

Being homosexual is NOT a `choice' - any more than being heterosexual is a choice.

Did YOU have to sit down in front of a mirror the day after your 16th birthday, and ask yourself whether - from hear-on-out - you were going to be attracted to people of the opposite sex - or the same sex? Of course not... you always knew - didn't you?

So why would you be so narrow-minded and judgmental to presume that anyone else goes about this intimate process in any other manner?

[Reality]

The people of California have voted and spoken out on this. Marriage SHOULD be between one man and one woman. There are civil unions for those wishing to live a life of sin. This article fails to mention the judge is a homosexual, so we already know how this will play out. Once again, the majority of the people lose.

[skippy777]

is anyone surprised??????

california is soooooooooo in the toilet in so many ways....morally, politically, financially, its failed school systems, its political correctness, its trillion-dollar-a year cost to taxpayers for unions and on and on and on and on.....if only an earthquake would occur....it would put this loser state out of its misery

i moved out of california a year ago. thank you, God.

[bobnoir]

Any marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. One's perceived laws of your god and the laws of the U.S. should not be confused--they have nothing to do with one another. If in doubt, read and understand the First Amendment of the Constitution and the equal protection portion of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Brad D]

A radical homosexual Judge rules in favor of ... gasp ... the radical homosexual agenda.
.
I'm shocked, shocked...

[nedclark]

Wow, Neil&Bob...
I'll bet you consider yourself(es) good, bible-believin' christians...

"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."

But if you strictly obey only the laws of the "Old" (read Hebrew) Bible, that would make you Jewish...

Christ came to earth to do away with the `old covenant' and establish a New Covenant. Jesus says not one word about homosexuality - but he does say plenty about hateful, narrow-minded `judgmentalism'.

And news-flash...the United States of America is a secular nation, precisely because the Founding Fathers saw the evil perpetrated by one group of religious fundamentalists against the others (and the society as a whole) in the "Old World", and they wanted to avoid that here.

[Brad D]

.
A gay man has the identical rights as a straight man ... both can only marry a woman.
.
.
How is that being unequal?

[John]

-- Follow the money! -- Does anyone really believe that the entire gay marriage controversy is about two people making a commitment to live together in marriage? It's about legalizing the union so that everyone else has to pay taxes to support those who would not otherwise be entitled to 'eat at the public trough!"

[robert]

I see bouth sides of this issues too.....but I wish they would agree to call there (Gay'S) union any thing but a marriage .,this would end the whole problem , if given all the rights of husband wife relationship....cause a lot of this is all about money n same rights......after all a marriage is in the bible, n the goverments didnt get in the mix untill there was money to be made atto the paper work n lic, which use to be keep by only the chuarch, ez to prove,try to fined a family member way back you'll be looking into chuarch records. that cences ect....

[James D]

30 plus states put this ban in their state constitution. Even in leftist California the people voted and their state supreme court ruled it legal.
The ONE FEDERAL JUDGE, akin to Iran's Ali Khamenei, just says that the all the laws are invalid. Disgusting. And that judge also was gay. And no one is reporting that fact and frankly should have recused himself from the case.

[Parky]

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie down with mankind, as with womenkind: it is abomination.
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in thier lust toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error whichwas meet.

Homosexuality is not a natural act, it does not come from God, it is a choice that mankind makes. Everyone wants to be accepted for who they are, I would agree and accept this concept. What I will not accept is that homosexuality is normal, and that it should be given the same access to traditional marriage.

[Joe American]

Thank goodness the Judge got it right....marriage is between a man and woman...period

[Ratt]

So, is the GLBT Community willing to start Civil War II over this ?

[skippy777]

a federal gay judge in san fransicko supports gay marriage.....wow, there's a surprise.

[Caligurl]

Stupid people stop comparing the fight for racial equality to whoever or whatever you want to have sex with! How insulting to compare the fight that blacks had- who can't hide their color- to who you like to sleep with. Sorry, people love alot of different people and things, doesn't mean you should change the law to get married to them.

[C.J. Parker]

Same sex couples should have the right the marry, and quite frankly, it is not anyone else's business to deny them that right.
The conservatives backing Prop. 8 argue that a majority of voters approved the ban on same sex marriage, so therefore it should be recognized by the state.
However, here is the problem: what if voters approved a ban to prevent a Black man from marrying a White woman? It should be upheld right?
Or I bet most of the southern voters would vote to keep segregation in public schools.
In all cases dealing with civil rights, the Fed Gov. has had to step in because the citizens of that state, county or region were reluctant to accept change and give certain people the rights granted to them under the constitution. The path towards women's equality and racial equality was a tough one, and marriage equality is no different.

[skippy777]

a marxist in the white house, marxist judges in fifty states and in the supreme court, obamacare to be expensive and run by government workers who know nothing about medicine or care or budgets or finances, decisions made by senators and judges but not by citizens, liberal leaders like the clintons and john kerry and obamas who claim to care about the little people as they splurge on $ 5 million weddings and $ 7 million yachts and $ 6 million vacations....get me out of here.

[u_da_man]

States Rights? Does that mean anything anymore. and, did anyone expect anything else out of a Federal Court in California? Is the judge who ruled in this case really gay? Isnt that a conflict of interest if it effects his status? to wit-he just decided to give himself rights.