![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Vaughn Walker, the federal judge hearing the case against Proposition 8 in California, has ruled that "Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
Thus, for the moment at least, the ban against gay marriages in California has been set aside, pending further appeals. And I'm certain there will be further appeals. This case is likely to get all the way to the Supreme Court.
But for now, I'll savor the victory.
If you're interested in seeing the entire 130-some page decision, it's here. But here's the judge's summation of the arguments by the proponents of Prop 8:
"Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition 8, see Doc #605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP
"... The evidence shows that the state advances nothing whenit adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples frommarriage.Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition arenothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES
"...Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME- SEX PARENTING
"...None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence sows Porposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
"...To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights ofthose morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
"... 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.See FF 48, 76-80.The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST
"... Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8.The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal.FF 47-50.Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION
"...The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.FF 79-80.The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. ... Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.... .Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Good on ya, Judge Walker! Let's hope your ruling stands!
Thus, for the moment at least, the ban against gay marriages in California has been set aside, pending further appeals. And I'm certain there will be further appeals. This case is likely to get all the way to the Supreme Court.
But for now, I'll savor the victory.
If you're interested in seeing the entire 130-some page decision, it's here. But here's the judge's summation of the arguments by the proponents of Prop 8:
"Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition 8, see Doc #605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP
"... The evidence shows that the state advances nothing whenit adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples frommarriage.Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition arenothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES
"...Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME- SEX PARENTING
"...None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence sows Porposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
"...To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights ofthose morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
"... 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.See FF 48, 76-80.The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.
"PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST
"... Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8.The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal.FF 47-50.Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION
"...The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.FF 79-80.The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. ... Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.... .Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Good on ya, Judge Walker! Let's hope your ruling stands!