Judge overturns California gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Gay Marriage Trial
AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Sheree Red Bornand, right, hugs Aidan Dunn after hearing the decision in the United States District Court proceedings challenging Proposition 8 outside of the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That's because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

"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," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.

"Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge ruled.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.

The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate. The longtime federal judge was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

The verdict was the second in a federal gay marriage case to come down in recent weeks. A federal judge in Massachusetts decided last month the state's legally married gay couples had been wrongly denied the federal financial benefits of marriage because of a law preventing the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.

The plaintiffs in the California case presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson delivered the closing argument for opponents of the ban. He told Judge Walker that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.

Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."

In an unusual move, the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.

That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

triumph's picture

The judge did his job...

The judge is not there to uphold the will of the people. He is there to uphold the Constitution. Neither interacial marriage, nor slavery, nor intergration would have passed with a popular vote. A basic course in civics would clarify this for those who do not understand.

Joseph's picture
verified

Perspective anyone

How it is reasonable to for anyone toactually cast a "vote" for equal rights? Sexual orientation, same-sex marriage and adoption issues aside, how is it possible that we are expected to believe it reasonable to accept discrimination as valid when it's enforced by a popular vote? Do you all want to explain that to me?

thinkingman's picture

Please feel free to enlighten

Please feel free to enlighten us...

frnchmn's picture

...and your blathering is

...and your blathering is relevent?

Alexander Nevsky's picture

It is Constitutional ……. “We

It is Constitutional …….

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
In an out of favor, agree or disagree, moral or un moral,…Americans have the responsibility to respect the constitution.

Disagree, however, I have to respect my fellows Americans for there pursuit of happiness.
The question I have is “powers from the consent of the governed.”

I believe this was voted down twice……..

Does voting REALLY mean anything, in the pursuit of happiness……..

Solutions needed..Thx

Brain's picture

Move on....

There are much bigger issues in the US / World today.

I am more concerned with the giant solar flare hitting the earth than gay marriage.

ronh66's picture
verified

Why bother voting

Why should we the people bother voting if what we vote will be over turned because a certain group does not like the out come of the vote....When will they get the point leave marriage as it stands between one WOMEN and one MAN......

Lil's picture
verified

uh...

The constitution?

Gil's picture

Once again

the left uses the courts to push their agenda against the will of the people. Time and again this affront to marriage has been overturned when put to an actual vote by the people and once again the left has used the courts to usurp that vote. They know that given the opportunity to decide, the people as a group reject the ideology of the left. Of course, as the ever astute Dan has pointed out, you can't disagree with the left or you are a (fill in the blank - homophobe, racist, bigot, Nazi,etc) ______. I'm not sure how you can have any type of honest debate when you are not allowed to disagree.

joe public's picture

Marriage should be between a

Marriage should be between a man and a women now if its same sex it should be something else so as they can get their benifits end of story,

mbthedragon's picture

After issuing the ruling, did

After issuing the ruling, did the judge return home to his gay partner?

tron's picture

Why do you care, Clarence

he's a bush appointee, so any blather you wish to spout is irrelevant.

mbthedragon's picture

Which President appointed him

Which President appointed him is not relevant. There is someone who posts regularly on these boards that is living proof that someone other than a man and woman engaged in some sort of sexual activity. So I would suggest that from your knowledge and experience your view on this matter is probably correct.

tron's picture

I'm quite certain that

the homophobes will appeal this decision. They just do not want fairness, they prefer to live in their bigotry.

thinkingman's picture

Danny, how can you call

Danny, how can you call others homophobes when it is you who gets so upset and has posts removed when anyone questions your sexuality? If you are gay or gay friendly, why get offended if someone calls you gay? A true supporter of gay rights and gay equality would have no problem being called homosexual, it would be like a badge of honor. You'll probably have this post removed within the hour, but I hope patti reads it first to understand I'm not name calling, just pointing out a subtle hypocricy in your argument.

Joseph's picture
verified

Here we go again

And how "thinker" are these comments helpful to anyone — much less yourself?

Advertisement