U.S. Federal Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said “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.”
In so doing, he struck down one of the most followed and controversial California ballot measures in recent years. The ruling is significant in that it struck down the proposition as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
“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.”
“Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” wrote Mr. Walker. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Judge Walker continued.
Judge Walker 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.“
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote. “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,” he wrote.
Judge Walker has issued a temporary stay of his ruling while he reviews arguments from Proposition 8 attorneys, who have asked for a permanent stay, pending appeal. The temporary stay means same-sex couples cannot resume marrying in California.
Likewise, current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger applauded the decision saying,“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, the Governor said. “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,” the statement concluded.
California Assembly Speaker John Perez, the state’s first openly gay speaker, said, “Judge Walker’s thoughtful, eloquent decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a powerful validation of our nation’s tradition of full equality in the eyes of the law. This is a decision which reaffirms the principles and ideals enshrined in our Constitution, and only serves to underscore the fact that recognition of full equality for LGBT Americans is simply a matter of time.
“I also want to express my congratulations to the legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson, as well as Therese Stewart and Dennis Herrera representing the City and County of San Francisco for their brilliant, inspiring and historic arguments in this case. They have won a major victory on behalf of our Constitution and LGBT Americans everywhere.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Of course the Supreme Court will knock this down. Many gay activists were skeptical about this case since the end game is clear.
Ultimately public opinion on gays is changing. The most important factor is age–young people accept gays at much higher rates.
There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will “knock this down”. They may and they may not. They may also refuse to take it up, believing that it should be settled by the states. When it comes to the Supreme Court, nothing is certain.
This is an issue that will never be settled between proponents of gay marriage and the religious reich. The most practical, constitutional solution is the abolition of civil marriage and any attached benefits.
Good! Today August 4 is a good day!
I have weird ambivalence about this. As a conservative I worry about the social implications. Mostly though, I worry about the growing lack of strong male role models for male children. Promoting gay marriage seems to advance love interest above child development interests. However, as a carring human, eI find myself happy about the win for gay couples in love.
Jeff Boone: I don’t follow you on this. Same sex couple are already raising children and have been doing so for year. If these same sex parents want legal recognition as being married, to me that helps promote a committed parental bond that ultimately promotes their children’s best interest.
I don’t know quite where you come from as a conservative in your argument, here, but I find Ted Olson’s essay on the issue a few months ago to be a very powerful argument from a conservative:
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html[/url]
I agree wholeheartedly, and am surprised that more of his fellow travellers among conservatives wouldn’t take a similar view.
Andy Pugno, an attorney who argued for sustaining Prop. 8 in this case, is a UCD alum and was very active in the student College Republican group in his day. He’s also running to fill Roger Niello’s seat in the state assembly.
There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will “knock this down”. They may and they may not. They may also refuse to take it up, believing that it should be settled by the states. When it comes to the Supreme Court, nothing is certain.
It likely comes down to how Judge Anthony Kennedy feels about the issue. He seems to be the swing vote on 5-4 decisions on the SCOTUS. I heard one court analyst today opine that Kennedy has voted for some gay-friendly court decisions in the past. I don’t know further details on that, however.
“I don’t know quite where you come from as a conservative in your argument, here”
wdf1: My main concern with legalizing gay marriage (and in the process, elevating it to equal status with traditional marriage) is related to the very difficult job of raising healthy adults from children. It is not a superficial nor easy consideration to explain, so bare with me.
When this argument is presented, the response is often a diatribe of comparisons with broken families… and of course a loving and stable family of any type always trumps the broken family. However, the only meaningful comparison (assuming we are saying that both gay and straight marriages are equal) is: a loving and stable traditional marriage family versus a loving and stable gay marriage family. Here I see a difference.
The late, great Joseph Campbell noted that most well established cultures established a common 3-step process to child rearing that he called “mother’s child” (nurtured with unconditional love), “father’s child” (coached and tested with tough love), and then adult (independent and responsible for self). Campbell lamented the fact that America lacked the myth and ceremony and consequently young people were taking longer to reach true adulthood… more often stuck in the “mother’s child” realm.
Having been a young man without a father for some of my teen years, and noting the growth and development of my two sons and their friends, and noting many of our nation’s current social problems attributable to fatherless males, I am certain that the lack of strong male role models can stunt the social development of a male child and delay his becoming a self-confident and well-functioning adult male.
I believe that a lesbian couple in a loving a stable marriage would be constrained in their ability to teach a male child how to become a self-confident and well-functioning man. They would fall short of the capability of the loving and stable traditional couple.
This is not about the sit down chats parents have with their kids, this is the emulation thing. My sons treat women the way they have seen me treat their mother. They strive to control their anger and passions the way I do the same. As a result, they have been more easily comfortable at an early age, than I, with their male and female friends… and I attribute this to their benefiting from some of the struggles I overcame not having this role model. Had my parents both been women, or my son’s parents both been women, I believe there is a greater likelihood that they would have struggled more learning how to fit into their groups of friends. Likewise, if my son’s were raised by two men, I expect they would have other potential deficiencies understanding how to relate.
I suspect similar issues exist with respect to females. For example, how do male gay partners relate to a female teenage child and help her grow to a self-confident and well-functioning adult woman that can easily foster and maintain healthy relationships?
There is not much scholarly data on this topic since it is a politically-charged subject. The primary data out there compares ALL children of straight and gay couples and concludes that there is not a difference. I think there is a measurable difference when the data set excludes broken families. The lack of dialog about this troubles me and causes me to not support gay marriage.
As I said, the other part of me is happy for gay couples that want this so badly. Having been happily married for 28 years, I get why any couple in love wants it. However, the issue for me is child rearing and I see a difference that should be valued and acknowledged.
JB: Thanks for your response.
I have been fortunate to have two parents (heterosexual in this case) present all my life. But I have at least a third to half of my extended family involve single parents (mothers in every case) or in situations of divorce/separation. Clearly the latter isn’t preferable, but their offspring grow up and mature, thanks in part to mentoring from extended family (aunts & uncles) and other community members.
The phrase “it takes a village” has been very much derided by some because of its one-time messenger (Hillary Clinton), but I am convinced of truth in that statement. My wife and I raise kids, and I think we do the very best we can with them. Nevertheless, I see certain other adults connect with my kids as mentors at certain points in their lives — teachers, coaches, neighbors and family friends, church staff — that makes my work just a little bit easier. Among the same-sex parents I know around here, I see something similar.
I appreciate Jeff Boone’s commentary, bc it mirrors some of my struggle with this issue. One difficulty I am having is the general decline of the institution of marriage itself. It seems as if marriage is on the skids as a concept – divorce rates are on the rise, people are not bothering to commit to each other but just live together. What that means is a lack of stability in general, which is not the best way to raise kids. I know, because I am divorced, and my children have greatly suffered as a result of an emotionally absentee father. I see gay marriage as more of a watering down of the idea of traditional marriage, a moving away from a model that is better for raising children, much as Jeff does, and for the reasons he states very eloquently.
On the other hand, I too want parity for gays, so they have equal rights. Civil unions should be a way of doing that, but I’m not sure whether our gov’t is capable of carrying out its promises of true equality. I am deeply troubled by the religious right who think being gay is a “sin”, as if they had a lock on all things right and relevant, which no one does. But I am also troubled by the extreme left’s attack on Christianity as well.
As in many things in life, sometimes there are no perfect solutions… My hope is this meaningful discussion will allow all of us to understand each other better, so that we can comfortably agree to disagree no matter which side of the issue you are on…
ERM-As a married heterosexual I have tried, without success, to understand the religious reich’s claim that gay marriage threatens or diminishes my union. What they have made clear, by the pro-life movement, is their commitment to force their views on the rest of us at any cost. The time and energies spent on this issue in the last three years have been taken away from focusing on other more corporeal issues like homelessness and healthcare, issues that affect children, veterans and seniors disproportionately. My suggestion to abolish civil marriage is the quickest and fairest constitutional solution I can cobble. However, knowing that most “straight” people will find it unacceptable, I also think the suggestion might move the opponents of gay marriage to moderate their stand. As you observe and have experienced, the piece of paper from the clerk is only as good as the will of the two parties to abide by it.
The time and energies spent on this issue in the last three years have been taken away from focusing on other more corporeal issues like homelessness and healthcare, issues that affect children, veterans and seniors disproportionately.
Gay rights also affect military service, healthcare, and retirement issues. It is probably those latter two issues that are driving the same sex marriage issue at a very practical level.
“The phrase “it takes a village” has been very much derided by some because of its one-time messenger (Hillary Clinton)…”
wdf1: I don’t know, maybe this is the new model for raising healthy, well-functioning adults. I worry though about others being too influential in my sons’ development without my knowledge. The term “village” is indicative a close-knit and somewhat homogeneous society. Unfortunately it seems our individual values in this country are very diverse and growing more so. Do I want my sons to learn how to treat a woman by observing my uncle who later we learned beat his wife.
I don’t know, maybe this is the new model for raising healthy, well-functioning adults. I worry though about others being too influential in my sons’ development without my knowledge.
I hardly think it’s a new model. I take the village metaphor to mean that it’s more than just parents involved in the complete child-rearing experience. The parents are always the primary child-rearers, and the ultimate filter for determining what influences their kids, but for many of us growing up, there’s been scouting, church/synagogue, sports, school, band, relatives, etc.
As a dad, I’m always assessing what influences my kids and what adjustments to make. There are probably very few families who don’t have to address bad examples of some sort at some level. I suppose my point is that same sex parents could make similar judgements on influences for their kids.
While I am happy for the gay couples who will be able to fulfill their wishes to marry, I am worried about a different issue.
There is little doubt in my mind that this process came about because a judge made a decision based on his moral values of what was good for society.
I do not believe that the writers of the constitution and its amendments would have agreed with the way that Judge Walker interpreted that document.
As a result, I think this decision will further alienate a segment of our population who feel that they are being cheated by the system. When they win at the ballot box their victory is stolen from them (in their eyes) by judges. In this case there is some validity to this argument. It would have been far better for everyone if Prop 8 had been overturned by an election, as it surely would have in the near future.
JR said
“There is little doubt in my mind that this process came about because a judge made a decision based on his moral values of what was good for society. “
Too much opinion in that comment. Please read the Ruling (136 pages) – the proponents of Prop 8 did a very poor job presenting their case. They provided many opinions but failed to provide evidence supporting the opinions. Some may feel “cheated”, but the Judiciary is there to protect the Minority from the tyranny of the Majority – that is how the “System” was designed.
Next week my wife and I will enjoy our 34th anniversary and I am all for welcoming Gays into the institution of Marriage. I wish all of the organizations promoting Prop 8 and the sanctity of marriage would turn their effort toward promoting more lasting relationships. Make a positive statement by helping to make marriages work rather than working hard to deny Marriage to certain segments of the population..
FWIW, the US Senate just confirmed a woman who plays softball, not that there is anything wrong with that, to the Supreme Court.
And the connection, Rich ?
One person put it this way; you decide…
It Takes A Village
“It takes a village (so we’re told), to raise a child today.
It takes a village (we reply), to steal his heart away.
To purge old-fashioned do’s and don’ts from his enlightened mind
To leave old fashioned Ma and Pa, a hundred years behind.
It takes a village, verily, to teach some mother’s son
To steal and gamble, smoke and swear, and vandalize for fun.
His mother didn’t teach him that! His father? No, not he!
It takes a village to corrupt, a village verily.
It takes a village, this we know, to teach the maidens sweet,
To dress and act, to look and talk, like women of the street.
It takes a village, not a doubt, to teach a maiden mild,
To save the monkey’s, owls, and whales, yet kill her unborn child.
It takes a village public school, some subtle class room chats,
To teach the little boys and girls to act like alley cats.
To teach them of the birds and bees, without morality,
To teach them what to do and how, and tell them they are free.
It takes a village, yes indeed, to brainwash all our youth,
With notions and with fallacies, in place of sense and truth.
Abortion rights! The right to die! The rights of animals!
Creative spelling! Unisex! the rights of criminals!
It takes a village, well we know, to turn their minds awry.
To stand for fancied “Children’s rights,” and parent’s rights deny.
To honor human nature less, and trees and rivers more.
To sacrifice to Mother Earth, and Father God ignore.
“It takes a village,” so they say, but something more they mean.
United Nations, Washington, The Liberal machine.
Society, the “Brave New World,” the socialist scheme.
The global ideology; It’s here…..The New World Order Dream!”
Primoris: Thank you for sharing. Entertaining. As is the case with some art, it is extreme in its message, but his sums up my larger concern and the concern of many over collectivism verses the historical strength and purpose of family. Interesting article I am reading in the Atlantic “The End of Men: How Women are Taking Control of Everything”. Makes me ponder the potentiality of the Women’s movement being a contributing factor in the weakening of the family.
As I pointed out, the notion of taking a village might resonate with me if we the people were more homogeneous with a binding culture. The tendency of too many Americans is to discount any notion of American culture being valued or even existing, and to demand greater protection of all others. Isn’t the village responsible for creating most Muslim extremists?
To Primoris and Jeff Boone: If I had it to do over again, my kids would have opted out of their sex ed class at DHS, based on my opinion of WHAT the school taught and HOW they taught it. My kids found sex ed class demeaning and embarrassing when punks in class were allowed to say whatever they felt like, which included some pretty foul questions and language, and when the teacher physically demonstrated the use of condoms in a coed class w boys sniggering unchecked. This happened with all three of my children, two girls and one boy. This is where I draw that line at “it takes a village”…
Primoris: Thank you for sharing. Entertaining. As is the case with some art, it is extreme in its message,
As is also the case in politics — differing sides characterizing the other in extreme terms that extend well beyond reality.
“Prejudice is not born in you. It happens after you’re born…”
You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear
You’ve got to be taught
From year to Year
It’s got to be drummed
in your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught
You’ve got to be taught
To be Afraid
Of people whose eyes
are oddly made
And people whose skin
Is a different shade
You’ve got to be carefully taught
You’ve got to be taught
Before it’s too late
Before you are 6 or 7 or 8
To hate all the people
your relatives hate
You’ve got to be carefully taught
Jeff: ” Makes me ponder the potentiality of the Women’s movement being a contributing factor in the weakening of the family.
…. Isn’t the village responsible for creating most Muslim extremists?”
Are you serious?
“Are you serious?”
Don: Yes, but mostly just full of myself.
Two separate topics though…
On the women’s movement impact on the family… first answer me this rhetorical question: If a woman is not reliant on a husband as bread winner but she still maintains tight control of the household decisions, then why does she need a husband? Also, assuming she desires and obtains a husband, might that husband grow a bit despondent and insecure recognizing that he could be easily replaced by a battery-powered device and a part-time nanny?
There is plenty of empirical and observatory data that indicates that males and male-social orientation have not changed too much in 60 years, but women and female society has “progressed” in spite of this and to the detriment of men. The “empowered female – diminished male” program starts in public education and ends with lower marriage rates, lower birth rates and a greater percentage of divorces.
Divorce is the primary destroyer of the strong-family structure… the structure that provides the greatest potential for raising well-functioning and successful adults from children. Compared to the social norms in place during the last great generation, women can more easily discard a husband, and husbands are more prone to leave to a relationship where they are so discard-able.
Frankly, because of the negative impact of it on my sons, I am PO’ed at the extended women’s movement and the men that support it. Title IX was/is just one example of many institutionalized rules to diminish historical male structures only to benefit females beyond what was reasonable and good for society. We have created a social monster in going overboard to prop up women.
Today, women now earn 60 % of all masters degrees; about half of all law and medical degrees; 42% of all MBAs; and 60% of all bachelor’s degrees.
Women hold 51.4 percent of all managerial and professional jobs. About a third of all doctors are women and the tend is toward women doctors outnumbering men MDs by about 2026. 45 percent of legal associates are women and this is too is trending upward. Men dominate just two of fifteen job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade.
For this Great Recession, 75% of the 8 million lost jobs were lost by men.
Possibly more alarming than these economic indicators of the diminished male, are the indications that women are driving much more of the decision to have kids, and they are choosing female over male offspring in much greater numbers. What does the future hold… more married lesbian women with test tube babies?
We see traditional marriage rates and birth rates drop and divorce rates increase. We see a dimishment of education and economic opportunity for men, and a degradation of their role and purpose. We see these at the same time women are taking control of everything and creating a sort of sisterhood of support that excludes males. So, yes, I would say that the women’s movement has been a contributing factor in the weakening of the family.
On the “it takes a village” topic… I’m surprised you don’t get this point, or otherwise don’t agree with me. I think it comes down to the question “who do you trust to raise your kids”. I don’t know about you, but for me, 90% of the main challenge of raising my kids has been to counter and defend from all the outside influences. Frankly, if all the village idiots had just shut up, my job would have been so much easier. At the extreme, the village may influence kids to become extremists before they have the tools and knowledge to know what is right and what is wrong. I am familiar with a few a Davis’s many two-doctor families that let the village raise their kids, and frankly I am not at all impressed with the outcomes I observed.