california court rightfully strikes down the bad law that was prop 8

No on Prop 8he struck it down. may it rest in peace (although we know there’s no chance of that).

the la times is reporting:

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.

cnn has the story here. yahoo is here.

kudos to chief u.s. district judge vaughn walker for doing the right thing. of course, this will be appealed to the u.s. 9th circuit court of appeals (good luck there ;-) and then on to the u.s. supreme court. at that point, the supreme court may take up the case and rule (which is what everyone wants, but will spell certain disaster for one political group – hint: believe it or not, it’s the group that wins), or the court may choose not to rule on a state’s matter.

of course, we will not stop hearing the mantra of how an ‘activist court’ ‘disregarded the will of the people’ and ‘legislated from the bench.’ we’re going to hear that until we’re sick of it. of course, we didn’t hear that from conservatives when the supreme court overturned gun bans in dc and chicago, but i digress. (remember: when we read ‘legislating from the bench,’ we should actually read ‘legislating form the bench against my point of view.’) i wonder how long it will take for prop 8 supporters to cry foul and complain about the fact that the judge was himself gay?

sometimes, or very rare occasions, certain groups (mostly religious groups) rally within a state (and sometimes from outside a state’s borders) to bypass the elected representative legislature (via direct ballot initiative) and fund, support, rally behind, and pass a bad, discriminatory law. that’s what some people in california (and utah) did with prop 8, the initiative to ban gay marriage in california.

the court reached the correct decision today. the pro-prop 8’ers intentionally bypassed the legislature to pass a bad law. the court rightfully overturned it.

page 135 of the judge’s ruling concludes:

“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 California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and 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.”

the comment from the remedies on p. 136 is also worthy of note:

“California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

that is to say, they knew it was unconstitutional, and any lawmaker that supports prop 8 outside of an über-conservative district is finished. prop 8 supporters knew that playing on the fears and/or beliefs of the populace via direct ballot initiative was the only possible way to ram this initiative through into law. and now, that law is gone. (now, if we can only get rid of the ballot initiative process…)

now for the appeals.

i am wondering: the first time a gay marriage ban was placed on the california ballot (prop 22 of 2000), it passed with 61.4% of the vote. the second time (prop 8 of 2008) it passed with only 52.2% of the vote – a loss of over 9% in 8 years. i wonder when they put another gay marriage ban on the california ballot (and they most certainly will) if it will even pass? 2.2% more and it fails. given the current trends state-wide and nationally, the group that wants to discriminate against homosexuals is running out of bullets.

13 Responses

  1. So good to know that persons like you are interested in such a kind of social problematics.

  2. […] and how pure democracy is affecting these Republic of ours. There are differing opinions (here and here) of […]

  3. Things are a little bit different for us in Canada, where the constitution clearly enjoins a plenary recognition of the supremacy of God in all legislative procedures. This phrase hasn’t been removed from the preamble, so it makes the situation a little more tricky for gay rights lobbyists.

  4. […] these Republic of ours. There are differing opinions (here and here) of […]

  5. […] and how pure democracy is affecting these Republic of ours. There are differing opinions (here and here) of […]

  6. Three guesses what’s going to be preached from Christian Culture War pulpits this Sunday. Especially since this can easily (and with some justification) be spun as an Appointed/Anointed Judge overruling by Decree the will of the people. And for further Conspiracy Fuel, it’s already coming out that the judge was Gay(TM), with only occasional mention that his decision basically kicked the hot potato upstairs to the appeals court system.

    I’m already tweaking my spam filters against the coming flood of Urgent Christian Political Action Alerts.

  7. […] On his blog, Dr. Cargill put it best regarding the charge of judicial activism: […]

  8. I think the US Supreme Court will strike down all gay marriage bans, and DoMA as well, for violating the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

  9. Around November, when Prop 8 was heading to the polls and the results were still unclear there was an interview with a Pro-8 activist. He said, alas Ii can’t find the quote so this is a paraphrase:

    , …We are fighting this so passionately now because we know demographics are against up, 20 years from now nobody would be able to pass such a ban, the ‘young people’ just don’t see the problem…

  10. […] I shall continue doing my part (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) to combat the discriminatory hatred that continues to […]

  11. […] because I advocated so strongly against California’s Proposition 8 (here and here and here and here). And while I don’t let petty, false accusations and/or what other people might call […]

  12. […] I’ve been arguing here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here for years […]

  13. […] california court rightfully strikes down the bad law that was prop 8 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: