Marriage Discrimination Ruled Unconstitutional

- Judge rules due process and equal protection rights violated by bigoted California Constitution. A total legal victory for equal rights, and defeat for the Mormons and bigots -

by Adam Bink at Proposition Eight Trial Tracker

I just finished reading the meat of the decision. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 is unconstitutional on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. Huge win. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Developing…

Here’s the conclusion from the decision.

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

REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The full decision can be found here.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

Wisconsin Marriage Ban Will Go

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

- Judge's opinion defending state statute banning marriage between difference races, overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Sooner we hope but Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage will go the way of the state bans against blacks marrying whites.

Battles over banning gay marriage will mark the political culture this Summer-Fall with predictably dumbed-down news coverage carefully crafted not to offend bigots.

Several legal cases are proceeding.

In Wisconsin William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen challenges the gay marriage ban on a question of ambiguity of the GOP referendum that brought this ban into the Wisconsin constitution.

And make no mistake the gay marriage ban is a Republican project, supported by the religious right advancing their god-given "Judeo Christian principles and values."

Evaluating the arguments for banning gay marriage, honest observers agree the 'it's what I believe' statement doesn't count as a serious defense of a position, though that's the justification most often heard.

The plain truth is bigotry is behind the effort to ban gay marriage.

Many people and especially the Republican Party [at least those Republicans not yet out] simply do not like LGBT people, explaining their belief that raging hell fires await gays who will be punished by god.

Ignorance and delusion, that's the staple of the Republican Party.

In one federal case, to once and for all rid America of the lawful unequal treatment of gays under the law, the Perry, Stier, Katami and Zarrillo v. Schwarzenegger suit seeks a ruling guaranteeing gay Americans equal protection, due process and privacy rights just like every other American.

So, it's worth noting the God-wants-it-that-way argument was also advanced by bigots 42 years ago in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case overturning state statutes banning marriage between people of different races.

The same Equal Protection and Due Process argument in Loving v. Virginia are made in the Perry, Stier, Katami and Zarrillo v. Schwarzenegger brief.

And Wisconsin GOP's gay marriage ban efforts reflect the same ludicrous sentiments against gay marriage held by the bigots in defense of anti-miscegenation statutes.

In Loving v. Virginia, the opinion notes that the Virginia trial judge stated in accepting a guilty plea of a couple marrying in defiance of the ban of blacks and whites that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Anyone want to defend that nonsense?

Christian, Mormon, or just plain stupid, opposing gay marriage is a political exercise in bigotry and ignorance that ultimately will fail through the courts upholding civil rights or the legislatures upholding civil rights.