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

[John Howard]

Marriage means approval of conceiving children together, from the couples own genes. Same-sex couples should not be given that approval because it is unethical and bad public policy and is not a basic human right.

[Alex Wolf]

The vast majority of people in the United States are heterosexual. Of that group, you have a percentage that might be sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. But poll after poll shows, it is not nearly a plurality. Let alone a simple majority.

So, to those who advocate the advocacy of "gay rights" please realize the masses are against it, and do not rely on the spin the media puts on acceptance.

If you accept that (and a simple Google search of polling results will show you that - and please don't cherry-pick the ONE poll that shows you what you wish to see), then I would ask: Why do you continue to try to impose YOUR will over the plurality / majority?

While Franklin was right about the tyranny of the masses, the loud voice of any small minority group is no more valid nor more worthy of our collective attention. 10% or so of the population should not be entitled to dictate terms to the majority. After all, this is not about equal pay for equal work, or universal rights based on being human. Those are things that unite us all. These are rights you are trying to procure while living in a manner that is distinctly DIFFERENT then the majority population.

In short: Do what you want behind closed doors, but please do not try to impose your agenda on an unwilling populace. Instead, may I suggest you find a place that accept your beliefs and please go there. For our mutual benefit.

[Schigolch]

Did it ever occur to these judges that in America the people have a right to govern themselves?

[Mark]

It's funny that some folks can't stop talking about the judge's sexual orientation. They seem to think that only a heterosexual can make a fair decision. Would they also suggest that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself whenever there's a case involving black people? Or that Ruth Ginsberg should recuse herself if there's a case involving Jews? How about Scalia and Italian-Americans? Sorry, but a federal judge's opinion is legitimate, whether you like him or not.

[JPs]

Californians already voted AGAINST gay mariage
How many times are they going to force this on us?

[Loganius]

Same-sex falls outside of the time tested and worldwide definition of marriage. There is marriage equality. The Gays and Lesbians are trying to create a 'right' that doesn't exist. They are trying to force their 'definition' of marriage on the world. Civil unions is something where we can have equality.

[Loganius]

The government is involved in the gay marriage debate because the government by the people is the protector of the people. Name 1 state that has passed gay marriage under an initiative by the people (not the state legislators or courts). Every state with gay marriage on the ballot has rejected it by a vote of the people.

[Frank]

If a state cannot restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman can a state restrict other marriages such as which adult relatives can marry? Some states allow first cousins to marry and others don't. Isn't the principle involved the same?

[Mike]

Anti-gay bigots often claim that it's anti-democratic for courts to rule that gays should be treated as equals when voters and legislatures have decided to treat gays as inferior. Saying that it is "judicial tyranny" when judges halt laws that were created via the democratic process represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the American government works. It’s probably deliberate, too, because religious conservatives only make this argument in cases where they dislike the court decision.

If the objections of religious conservatives were principled, they would offer this argument even in cases where the outcome is what they personally prefer. Because they don't, we have to conclude that the argument is only offered because it sounds superficially appealing or because it appears to sway voters who don't otherwise think too deeply about what they are being told. It's an unprincipled argument offered by people who care more about "winning" than about sane, principled government.

The burden of "proof" lies with those who would govern. When the government passes a law to criminalize some behavior, the burden lies on the government to demonstrate that it has the authority to limit people’s freedom in that way, not on those who would be free to act and don’t want to be restricted by the laws. If a court strikes down the law, it is not “legislating” because it does not create something new; instead, it informs the legislature that it acted outside the bounds of its authority. If a court strikes down the law, it is not engaging in “tyranny” over the majority; instead, it is preventing the majority from engaging in tyranny over others.

[Zack]

Homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them, just as heterosexuals can. Therefore their rights are equally protected.

[Steve]

It the Gay & Lesbian movement that is trying to change the rules of society. The attitude that something is being denied them is a smokescreen. Nothing has changed, no right has been taken away. Gay & Lesbian couples are different from married couples. I believe they should have legal rights associated with life partners, should be able to have civil or even religious unions if they want - Just leave the marriage word for what it has always meant. If there are real rights that are being denied, I will fight for you, but to shove your views down the throats of society when every election has said, the people want marriage to stay the way it is smacks of utter arrogance (we're right and how dare you disagree).

[Evan]

My question, is why stop at gay marriage ... what about polygamy? Multi-person marriages have a surer claim to be legitimate ... especially if we are looking to history and just allowing adults to do as they wish ...

Clearly society can put parameters on "normal" behavior ... we restrict the rights of the mentally ill or even handicapped who have done nothing other than being ignominiously born into this world with a condition. Society has and always will put limits on behavior.

As far as I know, a homosexual still have the RIGHT to MARRY ... they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Food for thought...

[jason g]

for me it comes down to one simple question i never hear asked: why is government involved in marriage?

[Gum Bob]

Whats all the fuss? The law is pretty clear. Nobody said a man cannot marry a woman, nor that a woman can not marry a man. We all have equal rights already. I can marry a woman, one at a time of course, and you can marry anyone opposite of your sex if you like.

Now that is as equal as it gets.

Now, if I decided to marry a man, well, that wouldn't be marriage, would it? No, it would be an abomination. It would be a re-defining of the English language where the term Marriage, is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

It would be unfair to generations of married people who, well, got married and called it marriage.

As my dad used to say, a rose is a rose, by any other name.

[j leonard]

Marriage is a religious ceremony. The state should not be involved at all. THAT is what needs to be changed. Every couple should be required to have your union or whatever you want to call it made legal at City Hall. Then you get yourself married in your church, or in your back yard w/ your minister or Justice of the Peace or your best buddy.

[RealRick]

I just pray that the good Lord takes me before I have to see this perversion become commonplace.

[John Q Public]

In a related story...

Unfortunately, Elena Kagan will be voted to the Supreme Court since the current make up of the Senate does not include a majority of elected officials who take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution. If the 2010 and 2012 elections correct this problem then Sonya Sotomayor (the wise latina) who voted against the 2nd Amendment after saying she supported the 2nd Amendment will be impeached. A future Justice Kagan will likely act similarly and should likewise be impeached.

[Bob]

I'm so glad that with all the problems we have right now, this is so important. What an archaic society in which we live, who cares if a man marries a man or not. The fact that it's even a problem shows that we truly do not live in a free society.

[Don]

Since when is marriage a "right" for anybody? I'm straight but I don't have the "right" to marry.

[Bob Moore]

"the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system" says it all.

[afrinish]

Nice

[Locrian]

@ all the definition of marriage comments, a marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. No representative of the spiritual is needed for two to vow to each other, hand in hand.

You can still get married by a judge or a ship's captain and all is legal and approved.

[Mark C]

A ruling for same-sex marriage would beg the question: If marriage is no longer an exclusive union between a man and a woman, who is to say it should be limited to just two people?

[dfb]

In case anyone needs a reminder, please be civil. We live together in a society.

Please keep in mind there is a fundamental difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. The issue in the case is whether the purpose behind Prop 8 was a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group, and through that whether the state can grant a civil marriage to gays. It is not about religious marriage.

Civil marriage as a legal construct. It is there to provide a certain set of rights and assign certain obligations to a couple that would not otherwise be possible. The civil marriage rights and obligations are completely separate from the rights and obligations under religious marriage. Relious groups can refuse their marriage rites to anyone for any reason. So, regardless of how Judge Walker and any other court rules, the state cannot force a religion to recognize a civil marriage entered into by a gay couple.

[Bob]

Something I still don't understand here, religious folks: (and I'm being sincere here)

Why is being gay such a bigger sin than all of the other ones? I mean, there are literally hundreds of sins that are punishable by death in the bible. (There was a quote above from leviticus about several for example). Cutting hair, rotating crops, etc. Why are these sins not as serious, and why are you not advocating death over these issues, if you are serious about the bible?

From what I've read about Jesus, and I'm not a religious person at all, he seemed to be a pretty tolerant and compassionate guy. Why all the hate towards your fellow sinner?