U. S. District Judge Rules California's
Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional !!!
This is hugely significant. Previous court rulings have been state court judges ruling on state laws that may violate state constitutions. This is the first ruling by a federal court that overturns a gay marriage ban because it violates federal law. U. S. District Court Judge Vaughan Walker has ruled that the law banning marriage, passed through Proposition 8, violates the United States Constitution in both its guarantees of equal protection and due process rights.Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional !!!
It is now expected to be appealed to U. S. Court of Appeals and then on to the U. S. Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown chose not to have the state enter a defense of the law at this trial. Neither still be in office when the appeal is heard (unless Brown is elected governor), so it might make a difference in who is in those offices as to whether the state offers a defense on appeal.
The only defense at this level was the lawyer provided by anti-gay groups; among the most active in raising money for it was Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage. The defense argument was pathetic, citing no valid evidence for its opinions but only appealed to "tradition" and the claim that the institution of marriage will suffer.
In contrast, lawyers Ted Olsen and David Boies -- liberal/conservative opponents in the Bush v. Gore case, but teaming up on this one -- gave what will probably go down as the definitive case made for gay marriage: moving testimony from individuals about how the prohibition of same-sex marriage affects their lives, plus impeccable empirical evidence to support their claims, and a course in history and sociology of marriage.
Judge Vaughan's ruling may be even more significant than the simple fact of his overturning the law, because it clearly addresses the legal questions and addresses the opponents claims. It could be influential in other cases across the nation. I'll review this in another post later. He specifically rejected the argument that Prop8 was a proper way to change the CA Constitution on such an important matter, saying that vote was irrelevant, because you can't take away people's fundamental rights by a simple vote of the majority.
Ralph
This landmark case was preceded by another federal court decision, in which a Massachusetts judge ruled that parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act are unconstitutional, on the basis that it denies same-sex couples who are legally married in MA the same rights that heterosexual couples in MA have.
ReplyDeleteIt's limited, but with implications. It says that, where same-sex marriage is legal, DOMA is discriminatory when it denies benefits to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples have. It's more limited in that it address discrimination within the scope of legal marriage, some of whom are gay.