LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     gay marriage     barack obama     chris hedges     ndaa     robert scheer
Most Read

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

Russia and Exxon Mobil Sign Arctic Oil Deal

Truthdiggers of the Week: 400,000 Canadians Launching the ‘Maple Spring’

I Can't Hear Myself Think

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Capitalism and the Jews

Capitalism and the Jews

By Jerry Z. Muller
$16.47

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Federal Judge Says Gays Have a Right to Marry

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Aug 4, 2010
Flickr / clementine gallot (CC-BY)

Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Wednesday found California’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. In his decision, the George H.W. Bush appointee wrote: “Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The immediate impact of Judge Walker’s decision appears limited to California, although there are national implications.

Ted Olson and David Boies, one-time rivals in the Bush v. Gore case, went to trial as allies in challenging Prop. 8 with a clear eye on the U.S. Supreme Court, but they still have to make their way through the appeals process.

Incidentally, if the Supreme Court ends up deciding the question of same-sex marriage based on this case, then the historic decision will keep the name Perry v. Schwarzenegger. 

Here’s an important chunk from the judge’s decision (the full decision is embedded below):

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. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, FF52. Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold, 381 US at 486. Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy — namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

Essentially, people have a fundamental right to marry, and Prop. 8 denies that right on the basis of gender. The law is much more concerned with gender discrimination than sexual orientation discrimination—by orders of magnitude—so it’s a boon to same-sex marriage advocates that the judge accepts and supports this view in his decision. 

Actually, Walker goes even further in places. The judge wrote, essentially, that even if he found gays to be in the least protected class of people where discrimination is concerned, Prop. 8 doesn’t work. But he thinks gays actually belong in the most protected class.  —PZS

Los Angeles Times:

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.

“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.”

Read more

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

                   

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, August 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

Note to fellow conservatives: Let it go.

Note to Federal and State Governments: Repeal all laws that bear on marriage per se. Concentrate on child raising. Why should the government care if two 60 year old gay guys get married? The government should care how a child gets raised. Period. (Was that redundant?)

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, August 5, 2010 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

Proposition 8 passed because of the influence of the Mormon Church.  While Judge Walker’s opinion is being well received, the effect is only temporary.  He will not lift the stay order until the 9th circuit court gives their ruling which should pretty much reflect Judge Walker’s opinion and even then the stay order may be maintained until the US Supreme Court gets the case.  However, in that case, the question become moot because the present make-up of the court dictates that it will uphold Proposition 8.  Eventually, we’ll see a push by congress to amend the constitution to include a one man/one woman marriage clause——the question is will 3/4 of states pass the amendment?!

Report this

By softandcuddlybear, August 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Needless to say, I am extremely happy that Proposition 8 was overturned.  I predict that the appeals process will not be in favor of those advocating for Proposition 8.

Report this
politicky's avatar

By politicky, August 4, 2010 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment

If you haven’t seen the Rachel Maddow clip on the judes opinion
of the pro-prop 8 testimony, you have to, it’s hilarious
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38567479

Report this

By Drift, August 4, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Such marvelous news! Justice for gay people! Gay people are found to be full citizens!

Report this
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.