THESHADOWBOX.NET

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

AFP's not camera shy and her YouTube and Vimeo channels are chock-full of eye candy to prove it. Content's added to both all the time, so be sure to subscribe!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional  (Read 10686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Devery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Tunnel-Visioneer
Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« on: August 04, 2010, 05:00:47 PM »

Hot off the presses!   A HUGE WIN, for now anyway.


BREAKING: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional
August 4, 2010

by Adam Bink

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…

UPDATE (1:43 PST): 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.

Logged
"The world is going to hell in a hand-basket, but it sure is nice up here on the hill."   A. Kujawa

The Angel Raliel

  • ...looked the other way when a third of them fell
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7620
  • ...devourer of scones
    • Raliel Art
Re: Prop * Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2010, 05:04:29 PM »

About bloody time..... why this is even an issue in a so called civilised country is beyond me
Logged
One should always be a little improbable.

@raliel

lentower

  • if you see me at a show (or elsewhere), please come over & say hi
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10433
  • this is a real photo of me. thanks sheri hausey!
    • len's web sight
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2010, 05:20:50 PM »

civilization is patchy here

i'm sure the motions for a temporary injunction are ready, if not already filed with the ninth circuit.  the ninth circuit is unlikley to overturn it, though they might issue the injunction

a good chance this one will go all the way to the supreme court.
they might overturn it. 
that will be the most interesting set of decisions to read.
the supreme court might combine it with the DOMA overturn appeal from NY

this is only a precedent in california right now, and unappealed at that
Logged
getting started:
BOX-RULES (please read...

further back:
Our forum before this one...

meganpaige

  • has 74 Indja Points.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 3007
  • I am a delicious boat.
    • twitter
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2010, 05:21:30 PM »

 :wav:

 :blob3: :blob7: :blob5: :blob6: :blob10: :blob9:
Logged
"nobody's going to come up to you and tell you to stop cuddling a monk and put your seatbelt on and while i'm over here what the fuck are you doing cuddling this monk?" - amanda fucking palmer

lentower

  • if you see me at a show (or elsewhere), please come over & say hi
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10433
  • this is a real photo of me. thanks sheri hausey!
    • len's web sight
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2010, 05:34:54 PM »

:wav:

 :blob3: :blob7: :blob5: :blob6: :blob10: :blob9:

you've found the ideal jury for this case!
Logged
getting started:
BOX-RULES (please read...

further back:
Our forum before this one...

meganpaige

  • has 74 Indja Points.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 3007
  • I am a delicious boat.
    • twitter
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2010, 05:52:59 PM »

:wav:

 :blob3: :blob7: :blob5: :blob6: :blob10: :blob9:

you've found the ideal jury for this case!

Thanks, Len. Let's hope.
Logged
"nobody's going to come up to you and tell you to stop cuddling a monk and put your seatbelt on and while i'm over here what the fuck are you doing cuddling this monk?" - amanda fucking palmer

imaginary friend

  • Enigmagnetic
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 14904
  • up in flames
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 08:11:39 PM »

*in my best Michael-Ironside-in-Total-Recall-voice* it's about goddamn time.

#@!

Devery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Tunnel-Visioneer
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2010, 08:15:55 PM »


I've skimmed the opinion (138 pages); the first 109 pages contain the court's factual findings which will be important on appeal as the Supreme Court, regardless of its opinion on the law, is required to give great deference to a court's findings of fact, especially when those findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony.  Judge Walker found that the “strict scrutiny” test applies to the Due Process analysis.  This the most stringent of the tests that can be used to determine if a law satisfies the Due Process Clause.  To satisfy “strict scrutiny,” the State must show that the law is “narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.”  On the other hand, the most relaxed standard–and the one that the anti-equality crowd argued should apply–is “rational basis review.”  Under “rational basis review,” the Court will uphold a discriminatory law if the State has any rational reason for having the law.  Judge Walker found that the “strict scrutiny” test applies instead of the “rational basis” test because marriage is a fundamental right.  When the State takes away a fundamental right, it must have a compelling reason to do so.  But going even further, Judge Walker found that even if the Prop 8 proponents were right and the “rational basis” test should apply, Prop 8 still does not pass muster.

The judge found that the law did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause under the a rational basis review, although he said he didn't need to state which of the three tests applied, as it didn't even pass the most relaxed standard.

More info from a blog I read on the opinion:



Judge Walker goes on to show in detail why each of the arguments advanced by the Intervenors fails to provide a rational basis for Proposition 8:

•Intervenors argue that maintaining the traditional notions of marriage being between a man and a woman is a rational reason for Prop 8.  Judge Walker responds by citing a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case and says: “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law.”  He went on to say:
Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

•Intervenors also argued that because same-sex marriage is such a sweeping social change, California has a rational basis to implement this change incrementally.  In other words, it should be allowed to first offer domestic partnerships before marriage.  Judge Walker rejected this argument, finding that “The process of allowing same-sex couples to marry is straightforward, and no evidence suggests that the state needs any significant lead time to ntegrate same-sex couples into marriage.
•Losing touch with reality, Intervenors’ next absurd argument is that the state has a rational basis to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples because they’re better parents and the state should promote procreation within an opposite-sex marriage.  Judge Walker easily dismisses this drivel by finding that the evidence proves: “(1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents.
•Going further afield into crazyland, Intervenors next argue that the state has a rational basis in protecting bigots rights to take away rights from people they don’t like.  Holding in his laughter, Walker responds: “Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.”  Can we get a Hallelujah!
•Intervenors next argue that there’s a rational basis in calling different things by different names.  They argue that it would be an administrative burden to have the same name for both opposite and same-sex unions.  And imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone said that they were married and you later discovered they were a GAY!  Judge Walker responds: “Proposition 8 actually creates an administrative burden on California because California must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples to provide the equivalent rights and benefits afforded to married couples.”
After rejecting each of the Intervenor’s arguments as to why a rational basis exists for Prop 8, Judge Walker went on to find that in the absence of a rational basis, it is safe to assume that Prop 8 exists because some people just don’t like gays and lesbians:

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief hat a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is ot a proper basis on which to legislate.

One quote from the decision that really sums up the feelings of many who believe in equality is:

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (Quoting a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case)

The long and well-reasoned decision concludes with this short and sweet determination that the couples who challenged Proposition 8 are correct:

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 and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

The elephant in the room is now the question of a stay.  Yesterday, in anticipation of losing, the anti-equality Intervenors filed a motion asking the Court to stay its decision pending appeal.  In other words, they argue that since an appeal is inevitable, the Judge should not enforce his ruling until after the inevitable appeal is exhausted.  Judge Walker has not yet ruled on that motion.  Even if Judge Walker denies the stay, the Intervenors will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to issue an immediate stay of the decision.  In a case like this, a stay is very likely.  It remains to be seen whether Judge Walker will grant the stay or if that issue will be decided by the Ninth Circuit.

*UPDATE* CNN is reporting that Judge Walker issued a stay.  But there is no Stay Order in the Court’s docket as of this writing, only the motion by the Intervenors.  I suspect CNN may have gotten ahead of itself and is publishing unconfirmed rumors.  That being said, I think a stay is likely at some point (probably by the Ninth Circuit.)

*UPDATE* The Court just entered an Order shortening time for Intervenors’ motion to stay to be heard.  Plaintiffs’ must file their opposition to the Intervenor’s motion to stay Friday, August 6th.  The Court will decide the motion on the papers without a hearing.  I suspect an order will issue very shortly after the opposition is filed, probably by Monday or Tuesday.  In the interim (i.e. in the next few days until the Court rules on the Motion to Stay), the entry of the Judgment is temporarily stayed.






Logged
"The world is going to hell in a hand-basket, but it sure is nice up here on the hill."   A. Kujawa

lentower

  • if you see me at a show (or elsewhere), please come over & say hi
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10433
  • this is a real photo of me. thanks sheri hausey!
    • len's web sight
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2010, 09:45:54 PM »

stays for both appeals are very likely
Logged
getting started:
BOX-RULES (please read...

further back:
Our forum before this one...

my beautiful idiot

  • I was born to die alone.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1354
    • tumblr
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2010, 10:50:03 PM »

I'm very happy that it was ruled unconstitutional, and I hope it remains that way.
Logged

CeeGBee

  • Too o-o-old to rock & ro-o-oll, but too young to die...
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18563
    • Facebook, website, what's the dif?
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2010, 01:44:19 AM »

Unfortunately kids, I can already tell you how this book ends....

9th Circuit will uphold the current ruling, but unless one of the GOP, uh, I mean "Conservative-leaning"
justices decides to retire in the meantime, SCOTUS will rule 5-4 that the fine citizens of the State of
California made their collective will clear and they, the court, aren't about to impose any sort of Activist
Judicial Philosophy (especially not a Liberal-leaning one) on them. 

The evil Prop 8 Amendment will then be reinstated.  :angry7:

Of course, it's possible that someone will put a Prop-to-repeal-Prop-8 on some future ballot,
and without all the Mormon money from Utah, those fine Californians might arrive at a different
conclusion...  It seems amending the Constitution of California is a bit easier than filling out a
typical merchandise mail-in-rebate form...
Logged
Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?

Agonistes

  • discocunt
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4289
    • blog
Re: Prop * Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2010, 02:24:17 AM »

About bloody time..... why this is even an issue in a so called civilised country is beyond me
honestly, why the lot of us in this civilised country havent picked up guns, shovels, and pitchforks and gone screaming into the streets for any number of reasons is beyond me.
Logged

JohnnyDBBUK

  • Proud custodian of the Neville sisters souls
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4358
  • Where in time is Brian Viglione?
    • ~Gaslight Cabaret Club~
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2010, 04:11:38 AM »

Prop 8 fail onto Plan 9


also this is just win - neverending loop of Amanda getting hammered.

lentower

  • if you see me at a show (or elsewhere), please come over & say hi
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10433
  • this is a real photo of me. thanks sheri hausey!
    • len's web sight
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2010, 07:09:16 AM »

Unfortunately kids, I can already tell you how this book ends....

9th Circuit will uphold the current ruling, but unless one of the GOP, uh, I mean "Conservative-leaning"
justices decides to retire in the meantime, SCOTUS will rule 5-4 that the fine citizens of the State of
California made their collective will clear and they, the court, aren't about to impose any sort of Activist
Judicial Philosophy (especially not a Liberal-leaning one) on them. 

The evil Prop 8 Amendment will then be reinstated.  :angry7:

Of course, it's possible that someone will put a Prop-to-repeal-Prop-8 on some future ballot,
and without all the Mormon money from Utah, those fine Californians might arrive at a different
conclusion...  It seems amending the Constitution of California is a bit easier than filling out a
typical merchandise mail-in-rebate form...

CeeGBee  could well be right.

Due to the stays, prop 8 could stay in effect indefinitely.

There may be two appeals before the ninth circuit,
One by a three judge panel, and one by all the judges.
The senior judge might decide to have the full circuit hear the first appeal, but unlikely, for the same reason the stays will be issued, judical restraint.

I hope prop 8 does get overturned by the voters.
But if this happens, the courts are likley to just throw the case out.
Logged
getting started:
BOX-RULES (please read...

further back:
Our forum before this one...

lentower

  • if you see me at a show (or elsewhere), please come over & say hi
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10433
  • this is a real photo of me. thanks sheri hausey!
    • len's web sight
Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2010, 07:34:42 AM »

The very smart and legally talented team that brought this law suit is taking at least two gambles

1) that the Supreme Court will agree prop 8 is unconstitutional.  From the stated legal views of the justices, this should be a 9-0, but the hearts of 5 of them are against same-sex marriage (what CeeGBee said).

If it's found constitutional, its unlikley to see judicial review again for a generation.

2) that if the Supreme Court finds prop 8 unconsitutional, that an amendment to the US Constitution won't be proposed and pushed to prohibit same-sex marriage, and passed.  The right is far better at this than the left.  Including lot's of money from Mormons and others.



I hope we win both gambles.
Logged
getting started:
BOX-RULES (please read...

further back:
Our forum before this one...
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Up