Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated]

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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. … 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.”]

[Updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.

“This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, minutes after Walker’s ruling was released. “From the start, this has been about basic fairness.”

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Prop 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

Photo: Proposition 8 supporters Nadia Chayka and her fiance Luke Otterstad stand in between Proposition 8 opponents Billy Radford, right, and Ron Weaver, left, outside of the Philip Burton Federal building in San Francisco. Credit: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Comments

[nancy]

still this is wrong very wrong.... this country only digs itself into a bigger hole each time. VERY SAD!

“Love without God can take wicked turns and disguise itself as a noble concept, such as “compassion”, “social-justice” or “dignity”. If ever there was a nation fallen prey to false love, is it’s the United States. Under cunning guises of compassion, freedom, understanding, and choice, our society has accepted homosexual behavior, euthanasia, and abortion all diabolical and false imitations of true concepts. As we can see, without God true love is unsustainable, of course those faithful to the Gospel know that Love can’t be separated from God, no matter how much people desire such an amputation. All Love is a determination to be God-like…. True Love is not a feeling, it is a decision. If love is God-like, then it is God-Centered and can not survive without his presence.” –f JC

[Ambar]

YAY!!!! <3

[Mikey]

Heck yeah! Go Cali! This is a great day! Love to all.

[Brad D]

.
A radical homosexual judge rules in favor of ... gasp ... the radical homosexual agenda.
.
.
I'm SHOCKED!

[Cody]

WOOO about damn time. this is a big leap for us. ^.^

[Monica]

Yes!

[Jason]

Um... all I can say is... YES!!!!

[Brad D]

.
How is the law "unequal"?
.
A gay man and a straight man have IDENTICAL rights and restrictions.
They can ONLY marry a woman of majority age who is not a direct relative.
.
Same rights, same restrictions. What's the inequality? Nothing in past or present marriage laws have EVER allowed a person to marry "whoever" they wanted.

[Joe]

Woow, yeah!

[kelly]

i'm not really shocked. i guess this will lead the way for other groups to say that voters were wrong. what happened to the voice of the people?

[Mark M]

You mean a gay judge ruled in favor of gay marriage??? GET OUT OF HERE!! Gee, I bet if this judge had been an outspoken Catholic conservative, NO ONE would have complained that he had a conflict of interest....

What a joke!!!

[LAME]

bravo

[independent_thinker]

I can't believe this is even an issue. It DOESN'T MATTER what a person may think about gay marriage. It DOESN'T MATTER if you like it, or you don't.

It's a matter of EQUALITY. EVERY American has the RIGHT (which CANNOT be "given" OR "taken away") to marry whomever they wish (apart from the ones that ARE illegal, like children, family, animals, etc).

[Brad D]

.
.
arrogant judge
.
arrogant ruling
.
.

[jay]

Haha, eat it hatemongers.

[Jack Molisani]

Correction: Voters did not approve Prop 8 by a 52.3% margin. It passed 52.3% to 47.7%, which is only a 4.6% margin.

[SaTuck]

Yes! Love , Hate 0. No H8TE!

[BeautySchoolDropout]

Let the games begin...

[Sushi]

Awesome!

[Pete the Fed]

Another judge overturning the will of the people.

[Chris in Kentucky]

Finally, justice under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Thank you!

Our time is coming, and not that far in the distance, but the haters will hate even more, so be prepared for a long parade of stupid in the months and years to come.

[Crazy Horse]

Sickening.

[Marcy]

Best news I've heard all day!

[JimBob]

Good decision. California is not place for discrimination. Hopefully this will help people realize that gay and lesbian families are just like the rest of us. Let's just treat them equally and move on to other topics.

[jsoberanes]

This is just sick.!!!