District Judge Finds Proposition 8 Unconstitutional: Opinion Analysis

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The anticipated Proposition 8 opinion has just been issued: Judge Vaughn Walker has concluded that Proposition 8 as enacted is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Supporters of Proposition 8 reportedly filed a motion to stay the Judge's ruling the evening before it was issued. Our recap of the trial, linking to daily posts, is here.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/fourteenth_amendment/

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The anticipated Proposition 8 opinion has just been issued: Judge Vaughn Walker has concluded that Proposition 8 as enacted is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Supporters of Proposition 8 reportedly filed a motion to stay the Judge's ruling the evening before it was issued. Our recap of the trial, linking to daily posts, is here.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/fourteenth_amendment/

Judicial activism at its best.

Just remember though on this argument before you bash me. I'm all for equal rights for all couples. However, this is absurd as far as the law is concerned.

[Nina~ 431]

Judicial activism at its best.

Just remember though on this argument before you bash me. I'm all for equal rights for all couples. However, this is absurd as far as the law is concerned.

So you condone mob rule?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you condone mob rule?

Paul thinks the courts are nearly always wrong and he is always right.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So you condone mob rule?

Not at all. However this is not a case of discrimination. Marriage is a contract (as I explained in another thread earlier) between two people in government. Government and the people can set the stipulations of said contract, so long as they do not discriminate against a particular demographic. Gay people are far from a demographic and under the current law of marriage, have the same rights as anyone else. If they choose to marry a woman as a gay man they can. A gay woman can marry a straight man, or a gay man for that matter. It's a contract stipulation, it's not a discriminatory act.

Now with that being said, most people who fight against the marriage for gay couples are right-wing religious nuts, or people who just do not understand homosexuality and are scared/don't like the idea.

Hell, with the marriage tax penalty coming back, everyone should be all for gay couples getting married!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not at all. However this is not a case of discrimination. Marriage is a contract (as I explained in another thread earlier) between two people in government. Government and the people can set the stipulations of said contract, so long as they do not discriminate against a particular demographic. Gay people are far from a demographic and under the current law of marriage, have the same rights as anyone else. If they choose to marry a woman as a gay man they can. A gay woman can marry a straight man, or a gay man for that matter. It's a contract stipulation, it's not a discriminatory act.

Now with that being said, most people who fight against the marriage for gay couples are right-wing religious nuts, or people who just do not understand homosexuality and are scared/don't like the idea.

Hell, with the marriage tax penalty coming back, everyone should be all for gay couples getting married!

What a silly argument. That's like saying that a state law can forbid interracial couples from marrying as long as the uniformly enforce it. In Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What a silly argument. That's like saying that a state law can forbid interracial couples from marrying as long as the uniformly enforce it. In Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.

Not quite. Interracial couples consist of demographics and men and women, not the same thing.

Loving v. Virginia had a judge saying they felt it was a right. There is no "right" to marriage. Just because a judge says so, doesn't make it so. Judges are not legislators, and marriage is not a Federal issue to begin with. Though they tried to make it one with DOMA.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

However this is not a case of discrimination.

The judge found contrary to your opinion. His finding is relevant to the process, your opinion isn't. Get over it.

[peejay 327]

No doubt this ruling will be contested all the way up to the SCotUS where it will be overturned.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No doubt this ruling will be contested all the way up to the SCotUS where it will be overturned.

Aye on the former but I wouldn't be so sure on the latter.

[The_Dude 1,142]

No doubt this ruling will be contested all the way up to the SCotUS where it will be overturned.

Thank you for your untrained legal opinion.

[Heracles 417]

Paul thinks the courts are nearly always wrong and he is always right.

So you basically support a system where the country is not run by the people and their elected representative leaders - a democracy. Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots. Basically the judiciaries are the modern day Kings and Queens for America. Why even vote on anything? Save the hassle and just allow the courts to decide everything.

[The_Dude 1,142]

So you basically support a system where the country is not run by the people and their elected representative leaders - a democracy. Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots. Basically the judiciaries are the modern day Kings and Queens for America. Why even vote on anything? Save the hassle and just allow the courts to decide everything.

Actually BY, the courts interpret vague areas of laws, or determine if they are legal at all. I am not for referendums every time there is a controvercial topic. What is right isn't necessarily what is most popular.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you basically support a system where the country is not run by the people and their elected representative leaders - a democracy. Rather, you prefer the unelected judicial system call the shots. Basically the judiciaries are the modern day Kings and Queens for America. Why even vote on anything? Save the hassle and just allow the courts to decide everything.

We're a republic, not a true democracy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not quite. Interracial couples consist of demographics and men and women, not the same thing.

Loving v. Virginia had a judge saying they felt it was a right. There is no "right" to marriage. Just because a judge says so, doesn't make it so. Judges are not legislators, and marriage is not a Federal issue to begin with. Though they tried to make it one with DOMA.

What? The fundamental principle is that if two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized by the government, then such a right applies to everyone, not just a man and woman pair. And obviously, that's the legal opinion of the judge who has a lot more extensive knowledge about constitutional law than you can ever pretend to have.

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador