Same-Sex Marriage Update

Manul · 08-04-2010, 03:58 PM

Here's a statement from Governor Schwarzenegger:

Quote:

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:

“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

http://www.gov.ca.gov/press-release/15738

SuperFemme · 08-04-2010, 04:05 PM

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private
moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind
now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage
imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons
affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians
without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION

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.

MsTinkerbelly · 08-04-2010, 04:08 PM

Mormon church `regrets' Calif. gay marriage ruling

Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago
SALT LAKE CITY – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it regrets a federal judge's ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage in California.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violated their civil rights.

In 2008, church leaders urged Mormons to give their time and money to support Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Church members were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and by some estimates contributed tens of millions of dollars to the effort. In a statement, the church said the decision reopens a vigorous debate about over the right of the people to define marriage.

MsTinkerbelly · 08-04-2010, 04:32 PM

UPDATE (2:40): Back to the presser: Olson is at the press conference praising Walker for presiding with “meticulous care, sensitivity, with concern for the rights of every party in that courtroom, listening to the evidence.” Questions coming.

UPDATE (2:50): WSJ asks why they can win at the SCOTUS given the conservative nature. Boies makes a joke about Bush v. Gore/split of justices. Goes onto note that the fundamental right to marry is established… this case does not ask the court to establish a new right (Adam: see the excerpt I pasted in from this decision above).

Boies: We challenged this case based on three issues. Fundamental right to marry? Already established. Does fundamental right to marry help children? No dispute. And does depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry establish any compelling government interest? We know that not to be true.

UPDATE (2:56): Notable on the stay issue:

Question: Reports that a couple is trying to be married right now at City Hall. What’s the likelihood that marriages can occur given the stay, and will the plaintiffs go get married?

Olson: Judge stayed effect of his decision until he can hear our side on the stay. The case is going to go up to the Court of Appeals. We will fight hard so the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, careful, analytical opinion will be brought to fruition as soon as possible. We will say to the Court of Appeals that if there is going to be any delay at all, it should be exremely short. We need an appellate court decision right away, and a Supreme Court decision right away… we’re going to fight to vindicate these rights as quickly as we possibly can.

Question: Did Judge rule on suspect class?

Boies: Yes. Judge ruled that even if it was not a suspect class, and strict scrutiny was not required, no rational basis for depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Yes, judge held it was a suspect class, but did so under even the most deferential standard of review.

Question: Anything that will come out of this decision that will affect professional gay advocacy groups?

Griffin: We would not be here today without for the advocates over the past decades.

Question: On impact generally

Olson: This trial has helped to educate the people of this state and people of the US. People of the US who will read this opinion and teach it in law schools and civics classes will begin to appreciate the harm this has done to our citizenry. Not giving advice to advocacy groups, but we feel very good about the fact that people watching this trial have said “oh, that’s what it’s all about. Why would we withhold the opportunity for loving couples to be married?”

Question: On witnesses and trial generally

Olson: Judge pointed out that two of the witnesses our opponents put on ended up agreeing with most of the propositions advanced by the plaintiffs… judge carefully examined interests and evidence on each side of the case… placed very little value on the evidence brought by proponents of Proposition 8… even found that one witness was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. Very careful examination of not just the legal but factual issues as well.

UPDATE (3:08): Question: NOM says this ruling jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states. How would you respond?

Boies: This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion.

The press conference has now concluded. Olson and Boies will fly to LA to speak at a rally there.

Soon · 08-04-2010, 04:36 PM

UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.”

He goes onto write:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.
[...]

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.

08-04-2010, 04:05 PM	#2
SuperFemme Timed Out How Do You Identify?: Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?: She. Relationship Status: Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Atascadero, CA Posts: 4,933 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,309 Thanked 7,108 Times in 2,327 Posts Rep Power: 0	page 135 Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CONCLUSION 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.

08-04-2010, 04:08 PM	#3
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	Not language I normally use, but FUCK the Morman Church Mormon church `regrets' Calif. gay marriage ruling Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago SALT LAKE CITY – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it regrets a federal judge's ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage in California. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violated their civil rights. In 2008, church leaders urged Mormons to give their time and money to support Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote. Church members were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and by some estimates contributed tens of millions of dollars to the effort. In a statement, the church said the decision reopens a vigorous debate about over the right of the people to define marriage.

08-04-2010, 04:32 PM	#4
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	FROM THE PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER UPDATE (2:40): Back to the presser: Olson is at the press conference praising Walker for presiding with “meticulous care, sensitivity, with concern for the rights of every party in that courtroom, listening to the evidence.” Questions coming. UPDATE (2:50): WSJ asks why they can win at the SCOTUS given the conservative nature. Boies makes a joke about Bush v. Gore/split of justices. Goes onto note that the fundamental right to marry is established… this case does not ask the court to establish a new right (Adam: see the excerpt I pasted in from this decision above). Boies: We challenged this case based on three issues. Fundamental right to marry? Already established. Does fundamental right to marry help children? No dispute. And does depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry establish any compelling government interest? We know that not to be true. UPDATE (2:56): Notable on the stay issue: Question: Reports that a couple is trying to be married right now at City Hall. What’s the likelihood that marriages can occur given the stay, and will the plaintiffs go get married? Olson: Judge stayed effect of his decision until he can hear our side on the stay. The case is going to go up to the Court of Appeals. We will fight hard so the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, careful, analytical opinion will be brought to fruition as soon as possible. We will say to the Court of Appeals that if there is going to be any delay at all, it should be exremely short. We need an appellate court decision right away, and a Supreme Court decision right away… we’re going to fight to vindicate these rights as quickly as we possibly can. Question: Did Judge rule on suspect class? Boies: Yes. Judge ruled that even if it was not a suspect class, and strict scrutiny was not required, no rational basis for depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Yes, judge held it was a suspect class, but did so under even the most deferential standard of review. Question: Anything that will come out of this decision that will affect professional gay advocacy groups? Griffin: We would not be here today without for the advocates over the past decades. Question: On impact generally Olson: This trial has helped to educate the people of this state and people of the US. People of the US who will read this opinion and teach it in law schools and civics classes will begin to appreciate the harm this has done to our citizenry. Not giving advice to advocacy groups, but we feel very good about the fact that people watching this trial have said “oh, that’s what it’s all about. Why would we withhold the opportunity for loving couples to be married?” Question: On witnesses and trial generally Olson: Judge pointed out that two of the witnesses our opponents put on ended up agreeing with most of the propositions advanced by the plaintiffs… judge carefully examined interests and evidence on each side of the case… placed very little value on the evidence brought by proponents of Proposition 8… even found that one witness was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. Very careful examination of not just the legal but factual issues as well. UPDATE (3:08): Question: NOM says this ruling jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states. How would you respond? Boies: This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion. The press conference has now concluded. Olson and Boies will fly to LA to speak at a rally there.

08-04-2010, 04:36 PM	#5
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.” He goes onto write: The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals. [...] 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.