PROP 8 OVERTURNED IN CALIFORNIA! More info here!

Keep up to date on Prop 8 news by checking out the LA Times, The Advocate, and Lez Get Real.

from the LA Times:


Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage

Judge says the same-sex marriage ban was rooted in 'moral disapproval' and
violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.
Opponents vow to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage
unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest
justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and
that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and
opposite-sex unions," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said
in his 136-page ruling.

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.


Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years.

It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings
during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when
he will hold another hearing.

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the
federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due
process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is
a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a
compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right
and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in
violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence
from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational
basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he
rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that
children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex
couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support
for that argument.

"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," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal.

Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians
violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic
process," Pugno said.

He called it "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down
Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of
having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop.
8."

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the
testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher
courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions
that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was
wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said
Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely
to persuade U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote
on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University law school.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine
University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological
status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm
when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based
primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it
more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic
Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and
morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral
perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said.
To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to
even comprehend," he said.

In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic
partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from
marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior."

He called the exclusion of same-couples from marriage "an artifact of a
time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and
marriage."

"That time has passed," he wrote.

Although sexual orientation deserves the constitutional protection
given to race and gender, Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional even
if gays and lesbians were afforded a lesser status, Walker said. His
ruling stressed that there was no rational justification for banning
gays from marriage.

To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must
show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there
would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.

Lawyers for the two couples who challenged Proposition 8 said they were
confident that higher courts would uphold Walker's ruling.

"We will fight hard so that the constitutional rights vindicated by the
138-page, very careful, thoughtful, analytical opinion by this judge
will be brought into fruition as soon as possible," pledged Ted Olson,
one of the lawyers in the case.

Other gay rights lawyers predicted that the ruling would change the tenor of the legal debate in the courts.

"This is a tour de force — a grand slam on every count," said Shannon
Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian
Rights. "This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling."

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two
homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their
federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

The suit was the brainchild of a gay political strategist in Los Angeles who formed a nonprofit to finance the litigation.

The group hired two legal luminaries
from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the
ballot measure. Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a
conservative icon, signed on with litigator David Boies, a liberal who
squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Gay-rights groups had opposed the lawsuit,
fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule against marriage rights
and create a precedent that could take decades to overturn.

But after the suit was filed, gay rights lawyers flocked to support it,
filing friend-of-court arguments on why Proposition 8 should be
overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban,
leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum. They hired a
team of lawyers experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Proposition 8 passed with a 52.3% vote six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

At trial, the opponents of Prop. 8 presented witnesses who cited
studies that showed children reared from birth by gay and lesbian
couples do as well as children born into opposite-sex families. They
also testified that the clamor for marriage in the gay community had given the institution of marriage greater esteem.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who
called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top
universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair
and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out
of fear for their safety.

When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the
Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

The trial nevertheless was widely covered, with some groups doing
minute-by-minute blogging. Law professors brought their students to
watch the top-notch legal theater.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the
months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those
marriages.