Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional!

[Tim]

Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians
without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.

FUCKING EPIC WIN.

The court rejected every single point the proponents of Prop 8 tried to bring up including:

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

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.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY

The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships
exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF
53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic
partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and
responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that
the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly
disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that
marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic
partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process
obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a
substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-
sex couples.

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis,
Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less
can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by
plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary
presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of
production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8
cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents
do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships
satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents
stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity
between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.
Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

EQUAL PROTECTION

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend
XIV, § 1. Equal protection is “a pledge of the protection of equal
laws.” Yick Wo v Hopkins
, 118 US 356, 369 (1886).

SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEX DISCRIMINATION

Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.

FULL TEXT - http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2010/...itutional.html

[Justin]

they're just going to appeal it.

[James]

tl;dr what's all this?

[Justin]

james do you ever put any effort into following the news.

[Tim]

they're just going to appeal it.

Yeah, but the judge at least made it clear that Prop 8 was completely idiotic and he backed his ruling with evidential fact. To be honest, the Prop 8 people made it easy for us to win because their defenses were ridiculous. I know you are interested in this sort of thing and I'd recommend reading the some of the text of the ruling in the link I provided. The good stuff starts at page 109 on the reader.

And James, I purposely formatted the thread like that (caps, bold, etc) to allow for abridged reading.

[Gav]

james do you ever put any effort into following the news.

This is very American news, we've pretty much come to terms with gays/buggery here now. If it wasn't for the few die-hard republicans posting about this on Facebook, I wouldn't have known about it either.

[Tim]

Ok ok. As with any thread on this forum, it was posted for people with interests in certain topics, in this case:

a.) The US
b.) Law & politics
c.) Social Activism

[Justin]

This is very American news, we've pretty much come to terms with gays/buggery here now. If it wasn't for the few die-hard republicans posting about this on Facebook, I wouldn't have known about it either.

i was more so referring to how james makes a "tl;dr what's going on" post in practically every current affairs thread.

also, this is news enough to warrant front page across many british news sources. also, gay marriage is legal in more places in america than it is in the uk (that being nowhere). wouldn't exactly say you've come to terms with the gays quite yet...

[Dave]

they're just going to appeal it.

There will always be appeals. At least until god comes down and personally tells all those christian twats that its not a sin to be homosexual.

[Gav]

i was more so referring to how james makes a "tl;dr what's going on" post in practically every current affairs thread.

also, this is news enough to warrant front page across many british news sources. also, gay marriage is legal in more places in america than it is in the uk (that being nowhere). wouldn't exactly say you've come to terms with the gays quite yet...

We have civil partnerships and gay couples have equal rights to straight couples... I didn't mean to make this into a UK/US argument, I was merely saying that an amendment to the Californian constitution with regard to gay rights is hardly going to be discussed in pubs across Britain.

This is good, huzzah for gay rights etc.

Yes, you're right though, James does appear to be woefully uninformed about current affairs.

[Justin]

There will always be appeals. At least until god comes down and personally tells all those christian twats that its not a sin to be homosexual.

well, not always. with the rate things are going this case is going to eventually make it to the supreme court. then things will really get interesting, as the court will have to decide whether it wants to fulfill it's original duty of enforcing the constitution (in which case it would strike down the ban) or if it's going to take the political route (which would probably be a ban, iirc there are more conservatives than liberals on the court right now..could be wrong though).

with that in mind gav, this is more than just a california thing.

[Tim]

I was just informed that Judge Walker (originally nominated by President Reagan, but was appointed under President George H. W. Bush) is gay. This is going to null and void everything now and fuel the fire in the appeal. -.-

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".

Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.

[James]

Yeah tbh I don't pay much info to current affairs. so I never have any idea what's going on. I really should get into the news more. :/