A Step In The Right Direction

[Sonic Glitch]

A US Federal Judge ruled that California's Proposition 8, the voter approved referendum banning gay marriage in the state, unconstitutionally discriminates against homosexuals and therefor cannot be enforced.

US judge overturns California same-sex marriage ban
Repeal supporters celebrate after the ruling The judge found "California has no interest in discriminating" against gays and lesbians

A US federal judge has overturned California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The judge found it unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples who sought to wed.

The state measure, known as Proposition 8, was passed by voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriage, although the state offered same-sex civil unions.

Backers of the ban intend to appeal against the judge's ruling. The case is likely to reach the US Supreme Court.

The measure was passed in a ballot referendum by a vote of 52% to 48%.

Currently, five states and Washington DC allow same-sex nuptials, though many states have enacted bans.

The ruling does not immediately allow California same-sex couples to marry, as US District Judge Vaughn Walker has delayed final entry of his judgement so he can hear arguments on whether to stay the ruling, pending appeal.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quickly welcomed Wednesday's judgement.

"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," he said in a statement.

"At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all 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."

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, also hailed the ruling.

"Proposition 8 has taken away individual rights and freedoms, and is a stain upon the California Constitution," she said in a statement.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban vowed to appeal against the ruling.

Randy Thomasson, of the socially conservative group SaveCalifornia.com, described it as a "terrible blow" to voter rights.

"Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California," he told the AFP news agency.
'Right to choose'

The 2008 ballot measure, known as Proposition 8, amended the California constitution to state that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California".
"Start Quote

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage licence"

End Quote Judge Vaughn Walker

Two same-sex couples challenged the measure, saying it violated their right to equal protection under the US constitution.

They said the measure violated gays' and lesbians' right to choose whom to marry while allowing it to heterosexuals.

Supporters of the ban said it affirmed the will of California voters to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and argued the state had an interest in promoting procreation within marriage.

In his ruling, Judge Walker permanently forbade enforcement of the same-sex marriage ban.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage licence," he 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."

My favorite quote: "At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all 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."

[stitch626]

Finally. They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us.

[Deepcrush]

Finally. They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us.

I'm just waiting for one of the married guys to come in here and slap you for this...

[Sonic Glitch]

Finally. They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us.

I'm just waiting for one of the married guys to come in here and slap you for this...

Or agree...

[Vic]

Finally. They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us.

There ya go.

[Graham Kennedy]

I'm confused. This was a constitutional amendment wasn't it? How can a change to the constitution itself be unconstitutional?

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm confused. This was a constitutional amendment wasn't it? How can a change to the constitution itself be unconstitutional?

No, it was a state proposition (the people voted on it...) that deemed gay marriage illegal; that's what is being considered unconstitutional.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'm confused. This was a constitutional amendment wasn't it? How can a change to the constitution itself be unconstitutional?

From what I've heard elsewhere, the ammendment was to the Californian constitution, not the United States' one.

[Mikey]

In fact, this ruling is one of the few times (maybe the only time) that the federal government has gotten involved more than rhetorically in the issue.

[Deepcrush]

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Its the state of SanFran after all, its not like this was going to last.

[Graham Kennedy]

Hold on, still confused. I thought Prop 8 changed the California constitution, and that the judge ruled that this was against the California constitution.

So it amended the California constitution and has been struck down as being against the US constitution?

That's huge... if they challenge it, it will go to the Supreme court and we may well see ALL restrictions on gay marriage struck across the whole US, yes?

[Nickswitz]

Hold on, still confused. I thought Prop 8 changed the California constitution, and that the judge ruled that this was against the California constitution.

So it amended the California constitution and has been struck down as being against the US constitution?

That's huge... if they challenge it, it will go to the Supreme court and we may well see ALL restrictions on gay marriage struck across the whole US, yes?

We can only hope, as much as religiously I'm against gay marraige, as in I don't think it's right, if it isn't me, I don't care, if they aren't forcing me, then yes, I would like them to be happy, and if being with someone of the same gender makes them happy, then so be it.

And I honestly hope that it strikes down all the anti-gay laws and referendums, or whatever there called.

[Reliant121]

Thats precisely the kind of religious viewpoint i like to see. "Don't like it, don't agree with it, but since it doesn't concern me let them do what they like, and find happyness in it."

[Nickswitz]

Well, honestly, as much as within our religion we're against it, I don't care outside, they have as much of a right to happiness as I do being a straight male.

[Mikey]

That's huge... if they challenge it, it will go to the Supreme court and we may well see ALL restrictions on gay marriage struck across the whole US, yes?

In a partial, de facto way. Technically, the Supreme Court cannot legislate. Practically, they can deep-six legislation although not write it. The process will be more back-handed than striking down gay-marriage bans acroos the U.S. - rather, it would set a precedent, and would encourage people to take other states' gay-marriage bans to the Supreme Court... which would now have a precedent for striking such things down.

Of course, individual states could then litigate on the gorunds of central vs. reserved powers...

However that may be, with today's news of Kagan's confirmation I only see a firmer stance against gay-marriage bans than previously.