The ruling is in, the celebrations are underway and both sides have been quoted whether win or lose. Here’s a recap of the “Day of Decision”.
US District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker determined, after lengthy deliberation, that a California ballot initiative banning same sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution because it denies equal rights to gays and lesbians.
The voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, outlawed same sex marriage in California five months after the state Supreme Court made it legal. Proposition 8 passed in November of 2008 with 52 percent of the vote.
Walker presided over a two-and-a-half week trial in January on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the ban is not constitutional because it creates two classes of people: One that can get married and another that cannot.
In his ruling some of the more poignant points Walker wrote were, “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,” Walker wrote. “The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples” and violates constitutional protections because it “disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification.”
CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford wrote in her piece at CBS News, there are 80 different findings of fact, including that “same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history” and that “same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples and that religious beliefs that homosexual relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians.”
President Obama who does not support the idea of same-sex marriage said when, asked for White House reaction to Wednesday’s ruling, spokesman Ben Labolt pointed out that President Barack Obama has publicly opposed the same-sex marriage ban “because it is divisive and discriminatory.”
Nevertheless, Obama has also publicly opposed same-sex marriage, and a White House aide said the president’s position has not changed.
“He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states,” said the official, who asked not to be named. (source – Politico)
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement, “Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.
“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. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians 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.”
From the Equal Rights Foundation press release , “We came to court to seek for Kris, Sandy, Paul and Jeff the same right to marry that all other Americans enjoy, and to ensure that they receive equal protection under the law as guaranteed to every American by the Constitution. Through its decision today, the court has acted in the best traditions of a legal system established to uphold the Constitution and the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded,” said attorney Theodore B. Olson. “On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally.”
Meanwhile the losers in this round had these comments.
“This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of same-sex ‘marriage,’ ” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, referring to the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
Perkins said the ruling, which found California’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional, would overturn marriage bans adopted by dozens of states if it is upheld (during interview on CNN). In FRC’s official release, Perkins said,
“Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a ‘marriage’ is.
“Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America’s founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.
Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) wrote in a letter to NOM backers and supporters,
Dear Marriage Supporter,
Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedented judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8.
This is a ruling that not only ignores the clear, legally-enacted will of the people of California, but jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states and threatens to strip millions of Americans of our core civil right to vote for marriage. We will fight back! Details to follow . . . .
You can read the decision, and follow all the latest coverage at www.prop8case.com.
Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer called (in a press release) the ruling to “reject the will” of almost 7 million voters in striking down California’s ban on gay marriage “a slap in the face to the people of California and a clear example of an agenda-driven judge rejecting the guidelines of the law.”
“Marriage is a unique union of male and female. And while other relationships exist, the value placed on this special relationship extends through all faiths and through all civilizations. The voters of California of all races and religions have consistently rejected the demands of America’s cultural elites that the basic institution of marriage be transformed in order to satisfy the demands of a small minority. From one end of the country to the other, the American people have rejected this kind of social engineering, and recognize the special role that normal marriage plays in our society. Hopefully the Supreme Court will send this decision to the judicial graveyard where it belongs.”
And lastly for this wrapup of the “Day of Decision”, the Catholic Church released its statement, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, decried the August 4 decision of a federal judge to overturn California voters’ 200 initiative that protected marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good,” Cardinal George said. “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
Joining Cardinal George in his criticism of the court decision was Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage. Archbishop Kurtz noted that “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot. This understanding is neither irrational nor unlawful,” he said. “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”
Comments