Prop. 8 foes, backers look to Supreme Court showdown on gay marriage [Updated]

A day after Proposition 8 was thrown out in court, both sides in California's debate over gay marriage are focusing on the next fight in a battle that is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Opponents of gay marriage immediately vowed to appeal a federal judge's ruling saying same-sex unions were legal in California. [Updated at 10:30 a.m.: Gay-marriage opponents formally filed the appeal Thursday morning.]

The next step will come Friday, when U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker holds a new hearing. The judge stayed his order allowing gay marriage at least until then. And it remains unclear if --and when -- gay marriages will begin again in the state.

Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately to reach the Supreme Court during the next few years.

Walker's decision was being carefully analyzed by attorneys with an eye on how the high court might view his legal reasoning.

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University Law School.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality was a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children didn't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality were "going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Edward E. Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said. To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he said.

Gay-marriage opponents plan to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court's decision will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court.

In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior."

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions," Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

-- Maura Dolan, Carol J. Williams and Rong-Gong Lin II

Photo: Jovanie Arvaezi, left, and Mark Vaccarino at the West Hollywood rally on Aug. 4, 2010, celebrating the Proposition 8 ruling. “We hope to get married soon,” Vaccarino said. Credit: Mariah Tauger / Los Angeles Times

Prop. 8 ruling: Full Coverage

• Times Proposition 8 home page

• Gay marriage legal in California

• Ecstatic reactions to Prop. 8 ruling in West Hollywood

• Schwarzenegger, Villaraigosa cheer judge's rejection of Prop.

• Excerpts from the judge's ruling overturning Prop. 8

• Q&A: Distilling the same-sex marriage case

• Photos: From around California

Comments

[Mary Ann Ludwig]

Bottom line. Does the law apply equally to every person? Yes. Therefore, no discrimination is possible. This is called "equal protection." It's just that simple. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights regarding marriage that I do. They can't cry about being singled out. I can't marry someone of the same sex either! Let's quite trying to torture the law to fit every special interest group out there and be realistic. If a law is applied equally to every person, even the Supreme Court cannot logically or legally find anything wrong. There is no violation of equal protection. How can there be?

[Ironman Carmichael]

How soon people forget that less than a decade ago Al Gore received half a million more individual votes than George W. Bush. So much for majority rules and the will of the people.

[Nicholas]

I don't understand why so much hate is found on both sides of this issue. People in general are just so misinformed, there's no need to bring in hate with the issues at hand.
Marriage as a tradition started with women being treated as objects; they had no autonomy, women were merely pieces of land to be traded at will. This is where many get their tradition of marriage from.
Being married you get tax breaks, where's the purity in that? Marriage is now a buisness to be bought (a license.
The truth is that our nation is extremely bias towards marriage. The people are so afraid of their own and other's sexuality that marriage has ceased to be known as it had and has been taken to the extremes that it has today. If you need proof of that just look back at our countries history and tell me how many presidents have we elected that was not married? One. In all of the elections we've had, only one president wasn't married. I've yet to see singles ask for equality; especially since we do all start as singles. But that's what the majority does; it rejects then it assimilates, and continues the cycle. The next assimilation: Gay Marriage.

I've also seen people talk of how gay marriages require third parties for children. The same goes for a couple that has an infertile mate. The difference is that technology has allowed for marriages to evolve. A couple that has a man and a women, one of which that may happen to be infertile, can now still have kids because of technology. That is what technology does to our culture, afterall, it forces our culture to evolve and change. We are witnessing this first hand. I wish the hate that everyone has been showing would dissolve. There are so many more pressing issues we need to focus on rather than marriage rights.

[darlene johns]

Why are we always tring to stop someone's hopes & dreams. Let people live thier lives as they want. Who are we to judge. Marriage is just a business merger to me. They are already in love living together. What difference does it make. You cant keep them apart. LET THEM MARRY!!!

[Raphael Noz]

What Judge Vaughn actually said:

"The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation."

"The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

"traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples."

Those quotes were taken from an editorial in the NY Times.

Here's what Wanda Sykes says:
"Defense of Marriage? If you want to Defend marriage, make divorce illegal."

[Raphael Noz]

Regarding all these posts about the uselessness of voting-

That's funny,
most of us realized voting was useless back when George W. Bush was selected - I mean, appointed- I mean.. . deposited?

[Tara]

This just goes to show how low the USA has sunk into debuachery, deviancy and immorality. We will continue to spiral into the *Abyss* As JESUS said he will come when the generation exists like in the *DAYS OF NOAH* we are that GENERATION. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.”

[Raphael Noz]

So why is it that
when people hear about straight people getting married they think about love,

but when people hear about gay people getting married they think about sex?

Isn't the real issue here that people have a problem with sex?

We should change the name to 'same-gender marriage'- seems these young straight guys have enough sex on their minds already.

[Tara]

Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left
HOMOSEXUALITY only exists when CHAOS AND DIS-ORDER does. And that is the world we now live. We live in a World of Violence, Hate, Gluttony, Self Absorbed Vanity and Greed and with DEVIANCY-Homosexuality is allowed ot Flourish.
Thank the LORD it will only be for a short time...

[Fola]

Well the time has come at last for reason to prevail. If same sex couples were originally intended, they should have been able to have their own children. As it is now, it is impossible for same sex couples to procreate which was one of the main purpose of God our maker creating us male and female in the first place. The animals still respect this principle. Will humans please stop being the inventors of evil things? Please stop causing confusion to the children- You'll answer for it on JUDGEMENT DAY! Repent and make your ways STRAIGHT!

[Ironman Carmichael]

If you have lots of time to kill, read through the posts here and in other newspapers. They clearly show why Proposition 8 has been overturned. Its supporters' claims have all long been debunked as hypocritical nonsense, yet they keep trying to make the same pointless points over and over again: marriage has meant one thing for thousands of years (wrong); marriage is for procreation (wrong); same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and/or people marrying their pets (wrong); majority rules and "the will of the people" must never be denied (wrong: it certainly wasn't the case in 2000 when Al Gore received half a million more votes than his opponent); schools will be forced to teach "gay" (wrong); this is not a civil rights issue because being gay is a choice (wrong); the gay judge should have recused himself (wrong: then all heterosexual judges must recuse themselves on the appeal).

And STILL no answer on, if marriage is so sacred and in need of protection and if children are best off being raised by both biological parents, where are the bans on divorce, adultery, single parenthood, and out-of-wedlock childbirth.

Future generations will look back at this and wonder what the fuss was about (right).

[Ironman Carmichael]

I even forgot one: let them have their civil unions, as long as they don't call it "marriage," because that's "our" word (wrong, wrong, wrong).

[laguna_greg]

Please try to remember that,

1- No law, no matter how many people vote for it, may supercede the constitution nor the basic rights described therein, not even "state's rights". And Walker's ruling confirms that Prop 8 may be doing that.

2- The law in our republic seeks to protect the rights of the minority against the tyrrany of the majority as a matter of course. So if you think you're able to legally vote gays to isolation on a desert island because there's more of you, guess again.

Walker had little choice but to find as he did. Prop 8 proponents did such a bad job of making up the defense that it would have been preposterous if he had agreed with them; they obviously didn't take it seriously. Prop 8 opponents would have had no trouble getting a mistrial declared in that event.

Walker's ruling shows that he understands the issues clearly. Good luck to Prop 8 supporters, because Walker has made it very difficult for them with this ruling to pursue any reasonable argument further (not that there is one anyway).

I also don't think Walker cares about the angry mob he might be facing, as he might consider this ruling as his finest hour.

Good luck to him!

[Misslini]

Prop Hate is the real name. I guess it sounded catchy to say prop 8, but for what it is; it is prop hate.

[byetheway77]

Morals are corrupted as religions lean toward prosperity theology, an ideology that God generously rewards some people with material wealth. The gay couples want gay marriage to become legal in order for them to qualify for a lower tax bracket.

[gifts]

There's no way we won't be looking back at this 20 years from now and be wondering: "what was the big deal?"

[Stephen J. Smith]

How fair and impartial. An openly homosexual judge ruling in a case where there is obvious bias. Homosexuals are going to turn this into a needless war. A war they will lose.

[beancounter]

Kevin said, "The real victims of gay marriage are the children raised by gay couples. No matter how loving a gay couple may be to the children they are raising, the fact remains that such an arrangement inherently denies such children either a mother or a father. Nature is narrow, and has been since the beginning of time."

If the concern is TRULY about children, why isn't the focus on broken homes in general? Why not outlaw adultery or divorce? That would make a lot more sense, and help A LOT more children. But, no, that would deprive people of certain liberties and freedoms that they CHOOSE to enjoy. Funny how that works.

[Kevin]

Since Judge Vaughn Walker is gay himself, he stands to personally benefit from his own ruling. The pro Prop 8 side should be calling for a mistrial.

[byetheway77]

Some gay couples and the California Supreme Court decided that gay marriage was legal without an election by the people of California. The majority of Californians want no part of gay marriage so they voted to ban gay marriage.

[Malby]

Bulletin for the California Catholic Conference: the judge's ruling cannot be "morally wrong" unless he was bribed or somesuch. And our fundamental public law and public policy, which our society has judged to be most important is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which guarantees equal justice for all, not just all people who look or think like you. You can still control who gets married in your churches, but so long as you insist on having our secular government engage in the business of marriage, it must be available to all citizens.

[Zach]

Kevin: "I agree that gay marriage is not the only situation where a child can be left without a mother or father, however, it is in fact the only arrangement that GUARANTEES such a fate for children."

A fate which studies show, time and time again, is of no notable detriment to the child. The data exists, it's time to stop talking about this like it's some unfathomable unknown. The problem you cite is an unproven hypothesis. A real problem is not having a stable and loving family, and I don't think it's society's place to prolong that problem for kids because of a hypothetical problem/residual paranoia some refuse to let go. You can heed your beliefs or the facts, but the law deals in the latter.

[Kevin]

According to Malby: "the judge's ruling cannot be "morally wrong" unless he was bribed or somesuch". While no one has made the claim that the judge was bribed, the fact remains that Judge Walker stands to personally benefit from his own ruling. Looks like the possibility of a mistrial.

[Alex]

Ironman Charmichael is so misguided, you can hear the militant radicalness in his writing. Ironman, you sincerly believe that we think the word marriage is "our" word?

Marriage is the glue that keeps civilization a civilization which goes back to the beginning of mankind, get emotion, religion & agendas out of the equation for a minute and look at it practically, you don't think that maybe but just maybe that even with imperfections of husband and wife that children need a mother and a father? You really think that there's no difference between Donald/Bill and uncle Jack/aunt Edith? A child being raised by two parents is the same as a girl being raised by two men who don't understand the complexity of what a young lady goes through at puberty who may need to come to her mom for advice but instead has two dads? Or a young man who desparately needs a male figure in his life during his informative years can't? Two moms don't equal a dad, a girl needs her dad in her life and so on, this is why nature throughtout the ages of mankind designed it this way, but overturning Prop 8 is your way of telling mankind that they had it wrong and you in 2010 finally have it right, and Im full of hate and biggotry and you're the enlightened ones? What an upside down world we live in!

And please, don't counter with the lame "Straights are disfuntional" or " they get divorced" arguement. Thats life.

Well said Tara we really do have a short time.

[Zach]

Kevin: "I agree that gay marriage is not the only situation where a child can be left without a mother or father, however, it is in fact the only arrangement that GUARANTEES such a fate for children."

A fate which studies show, time and time again, is of no notable detriment to the child. The data exists, it's time to stop talking about this like it's some unfathomable unknown. The problem you cite is an unproven hypothesis. A real problem is not having a stable and loving family, and I don't think it's society's place to prolong that problem for kids because of a hypothetical problem/residual paranoia some refuse to let go. You can heed your beliefs or the facts, but the law deals in the latter.