No article yet from a major news source, but both CNN and FOX have reported it. Good As You has the court's opinion. It's long, but I expect the important bits are contained in pages 109–135, where the judge explains the legal rationale for this decision.

In summary, the judge appears to have found Prop. 8 unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection Clause (fairly obvious and clearly correct; banning gay marriage denies gay couples equal protection of the laws) and the Due Process Clause (this part is less obvious to me and I'll have to read the opinion before I comment on it).

Edit: USA Today has the story.

Edit 2: And here's a less gay link (with selectable text!) to the decision.

This is great news!

Prop 19 is the only one that is important

^^ pot rules but so do equal rights!

Indeed

The system works.

Just heard about this on NPR. It has been struck down, but the judge decided to not let actual marriages happen until after the appeals process.

We should ban gay marriage, guns, swimming pools, immigrants, Mexicans, bears and Canadians.

Gay swimming pools and bears are the worst.

And kittens!

Speaking of which, I'm interested in the kittens you have for sale.

The white/brown kitties only cost 4 Jew Gold; the all black and all white ones are 8 Jew Gold.

Thank god. The last thing California needs is yet another ban on something that is none of their business.

Like the ruling actually matters, or wasn't totally expected. Its going all the way to the supreme court anyway.

I wanted to ***** slap all the religious nuts who flooded the streets back when this was being voted on. Seriously, shut the **** up and mind your business.

I feel okay about that. It was "totally expected" mainly because existing law clearly required that the judge reach the conclusion he did.

Exactly. Hopefully they don't cop out.

Huh. I'd never have figured you'd be for gay marriage by judicial fiat.

Wookie has said several times before that he's not religious, though.

Maybe you misunderstood. By "cop out" I mean refuse to hear the case or render a half-assed decision.

What.

Well, assuming they don't do either of those things and they also follow the law, I think there's a natural inference to be drawn.

That said, if the 9th Circuit affirms this ruling on appeal (which it almost certainly will), I simply don't see how the Supreme Court can avoid hearing the case. I don't see much room either, having read the "Conclusions of Law" portion of Judge Walker's opinion, for a ruling narrower than either "gay marriage bans are unconstitutional" or "gay marriage bans are constitutional."



At the time of my posting, both had reported the ruling on TV. Neither had put an article about the ruling online (nor had any news source other than a few gay-oriented sites), so I had nothing to link to. I should probably have been more clear on that.

No, the implication was clear. People knee-jerk post when they're looking for reasons to be offended.

An example of rendering a half-assed decision would be the recent 2nd Amendment case. The court affirmed it as an individual right but say that some regulation is acceptable. So, where the hell does that really leave us?

well, i think the judge made the right decision.



from the page you linked to...


basically there is no reason for the gov. to get involved in weather gay couples get married.

I think that was just a good example of judicial restraint—they'd have been overreaching to try and determine the exact contours of the right to bear arms there and then, rather than wait for a case that actually called for it. But that's another thread.

In this case, the Supreme Court might decide that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, without deciding whether all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Of course, I'm not sure that that would make any practical difference, since I can't imagine a justification for a gay marriage ban that even passes rational basis review (the very permissive standard used on the Equal Protection side of this case).



That's definitely part of the analysis, but it's not all there is to it. A law, after all, isn't unconstitutional purely because the state has no reason to make that law. The other part of the equation is that marriage has been recognized, since a case called Loving v. Virginia, as a right so fundamental that it's considered part of due process. To burden due process, the state must have not just any reason, but a "compelling" reason; this is what's meant by "strict scrutiny." California didn't even come close to showing such a reason at trial.

yeah, thats what i meant, not only does the state not have a compelling reason that will withstand strict scrutiny, they dont really have ANY reason when looked at from a legal perspective.

Let me preface this with that I fully support a gay couple's right to get married.

You know, one term I keep seeing get thrown around is "tyranny of the majority" - the idea of religious conservatives oppressing homosexuals by using their numbers. However, this "tyranny of the majority" idea seems to only be used by the minority - ten bucks says that a good fraction of the people who are complaining about the tyranny of the majority would have no qualms about if legalization of bestiality were on the ballot. It seems a bit...two-faced...to try and justify the judge's decision as protecting a minority from being oppressed by a majority when there's a good chance that these same people would have no problem voting against another group that was smaller than them.

The same people could make valid arguments distinguishing homosexuality from bestiality.

A better example would be polygamy since it does not necessarily involve an non-consenting partner. (I can make an argument for how homosexual marriage is beneficial to all of us and polygamy is bad for all of us if you'd like; does that make me two-faced?)

Incidentally; we have a similar proposition passed in my state. I look forward to the supreme court overruling it and all others like it in a few years.

What the **** is this thead about? I can't tell from the replies.

I think the whole debate is stupid.

Marriage sucks. I mean, sure, maybe there is a tax benefit, but bleh.

Let them just mantrain or scissor each other all they want, no laws against that.

Yeah, well. That's great and all, but there are certain rights granted to married couples that fags who love each other should be allowed to have as well.

I'm not meaning to draw parallels between homosexuality and beastiality; what I mean to do is point out the hypocrisy of a gay/gay-supporter throwing their hands up and saying, "Oh, lawdy, the tyranny of the majority! Protect the minority!" and then crossing the line to the majority and saying, "It is the will of the people that polygamy remain illegal, and you'll just have to deal with it since you're in a minority!"



Hospital visitation rights alone should be reason enough to allow gay people to marry.

Though that's largely already been/being resolved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html

Hospital visitation .. so what is the deal with that about 'family' only.

I mean, you see it all the time in movies "sorry family only" .. but when the hell does that happen?

I spent a lot of time in hospitals, and I've never seen anything like that. Even if it is a policy, the nurses probably don't give a ****.

Yeah, those religious nuts need to be prevented from using their freedom of speech!



You said bestiality, now you say polygamy after JM pointed out the flaws of what he thought was your argument. Do you see a high amount of gay people opposing polygamy, and if so could you link to some data supporting that "a good fraction of" gay rights supporters oppose it? Opposing bestiality has grounds (the matter of consent which JM brought up) which opposing polygamy or homosexuality do not, and it makes a lot more sense as far as the law. Even the gay people opposing both, however, might not agree with your supposed reasoning of "you'll just have to deal with it since you're in a minority".

Also, your entire observation was based on your personal assumption: "ten bucks says..." and although you would probably win that bet as far as bestiality goes, I'm not so sure when it comes to polygamy.

Are we really linking gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality? I mean... are these things really even in the same ball park?

Maybe there can never be a gay rights debate on the internet without mention of irrelevant paraphilia.

I don't think anyone's trying to equate the two. (Which, for an internets discussion of gay marriage, is pretty refreshing.) I think Wolfy's raised a fair critique of the "tyranny of the majority" argument that the pro–gay marriage side has used. I've had too many beers tonight to offer an in-depth response, but for now I'll say that I think the difference is between majorities voting against minority rights (majority tyranny, in the case of gay marriage) and majorities voting to disregard minority preferences (majority rule, in the case of bestiality).

And I don't think it's a fair critique if it's based on pure assumption, or generalizing some gay rights supporter's individual stupidity to discredit an argument used by the gay rights supporters who DON'T adhere to the supposed "it's ok to oppress some OTHER minority" hypocrisy.

I've never seen that either. At least, not during normal visiting hours. But a spouse gets special privileges. The hospital won't kick them out at night. They get an automatic power of attorney. Etc.

Without gay marriage, homos can claim some of the same rights through other means, such has officially giving each other power of attorney through a lawyer. But they can't ever get the constitutional right to not testify against your spouse.

Marriage should be abolished in the eyes of the law.