Tagged as: gay marriage
gay marriage
By Howard Mintz
Posted: 08/04/2010 01:51:23 PM PDT
Updated: 08/04/2010 02:03:12 PM PDT
A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and setting the stage for an appeal that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 136-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker sided with two same-sex couples who challenged voter-approved Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state. Walker ordered that Proposition 8 should be immediately voided, and same-sex couples be given the chance marry across California.
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,” the judge 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.
Prop. 8 defenders have already vowed to ask an appeals court to immediately stay Walker’s order.
Link
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger – C09-2292 VRW (Challenge to Proposition 8) (U.S. Dist. Ct, Northern Dist.)
- PDF of decision (Good as You)
LA Times article on the upholding of Proposition 8:
“The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before November will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.”
American Foundation for Equal Rights is supporting the lawsuit filed by top litigators Ted Olson and David Boies.
Above the Law has a post on the backstory of the Sonia Sotomayor nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court:
“This afternoon, we participated in a conference call between a senior Administration official and several reporters, to discuss the Sotomayor nomination. Here’s a quick write-up of the call.”
SCOTUS Blog discusses the likely lines of attack that will be directed at her:
” But the most extreme interest groups and ideologues are transparently uninterested in that reasoned debate as they rush to caricature the nominee and the opposing viewpoint.”
Deng Yu Jiao, a female hotel worker in Hunan province, China, stabbed to death a local party after he demanded sex from her. There’s been a lot of public support for her case and she’s been promised a fair trial.
NYC Comptroller William Thompson has issued a report declaring that marriage equality for LGBT couples would garner the state an additional $210M in revenue in the first three years. [Joe.My.God]
If you attended Sex 2.0, please fill out the survey and read about the 2010 Steering Committee.
An article at RH Reality Check analyzes AT&T vs. Hulteen:
“The case examined the pension payments for a number of former female employees of AT&T who had taken maternity leave before passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which clarified that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act pregnancy discrimination counted as sex discrimination. Now, AT&T is defining unpaid maternity of these employees as personal leave from the company. Â And the court has now ruled that such personal leave doesn’t and shouldn’t count toward these women’s pensions.”
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
Demonstrators outside the court yelled “shame on you!” Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal the ban.
The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature’s approval.
The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
“In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it,” the ruling said.
The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or “believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.”
They said they were “limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”
Link
Law professors Jack Balkin of Yale and Ann Althouse of the University of Wisconsin debate whether marriage should be replaced with civil unions for both gay and straight couples.
