PRESS RELEASES BELOW THE FOLD. ~Louise (& Autumn!)
CNN reports that Prop 8 has been overturned! Joe Jervis was quick on the draw and here is the ruling on Scribd:
The germane reference, h/t G-A-Y:
REMEDIESPlaintiffs 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.”
From GLAD and Mary Bonauto:
GLAD’s Mary Bonauto Comments on Perry v. Schwarzenegger DecisionGLAD congratulates the couples and the City of San Francisco, and their legal teams, for successfully challenging California’s Prop 8. The decision reminds us that the freedom to marry is a long-established right belonging to all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans. Gay people, like all others, want the choice to join in marriage because we believe in the values of love, commitment, responsibility and caring for our families. While the case goes on, we hope people will come to see it is really about ensuring that all committed couples can take care of each other through the important bonds of marriage.
GLAD is litigating a different federal court case, which challenges the federal government’s discrimination against couples who are already married under their state laws through Section 3 of the so-called federal “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA).
“GLAD’s case and Perry seek to cure two important but different injustices,” according to Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD attorney and co-lead counsel in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. ”Gill is not a right-to-marry case, since we represent couples who are already married. Rather, it is a case about federal recognition, challenging DOMA’s denial of these marriages for purposes of all federal laws. DOMA is synonymous with disapproval of gay people and our families, and we seek to end Congress’s different treatment of married people based simply on sexual orientation.”
Bonauto added, “No matter the outcome of these federal court cases, it is still imperative to continue working on a local level to secure respect for and undo all state-based discrimination against gay and lesbian families.” For information about local contacts, visit the Equality Federation website.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
# # #
From Family Equality Council:
Prop. 8 Judge Issues Pro-Family Ruling in Landmark Case
Opinion favors gay families, strong family values
Chrisler to LGBT parents: celebrate today, get to work tomorrow
Boston, MA-A U.S. District Court judge ruled the state of California was in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause when in 2008 it eliminated marriage rights for same-sex couples with the passage of Proposition 8. Judge Vaughn Walker found that marriage is a fundamental right for all. The judge’s decision is widely expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Today, we celebrate the court’s decision that upheld the rights of liberty and equality enshrined in our Constitution,” said Family Equality Council’s Executive Director, Jennifer Chrisler. “Judge Walker reaffirmed that marriage equality would do nothing but benefit our children. Congratulations are in order to the plaintiffs in this care, including Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who can now be married like any other parent.”It is the first time a federal court has heard, first hand, from live witnesses about the harm that the denial of marriage equality causes same-sex couples and their families every day.
“We celebrate today but our work is far from over,” said Chrisler. “There is a long legal road ahead of us, and LGBT parents must get to work. At the end of the day, this is about our children. As parents, we are in the best position to speak to straight parents about what it means to us and our kids to marry.”
Family Equality Council also applauds the many pro-family statements that David Blakenhorn, the star witness for supporters of Proposition 8, ironically made throughout the course of the trial.
“Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children,” said Blankenhorn on January 27, 2010. On the same day he admitted, “By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”
###
The Family Equality Council works at all levels of government to advance full social and legal equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families, one million of whom are raising two million children in the U.S.
From Freedom To Marry:
New York, NY – Statement from Evan Wolfson on today’s District Court historic ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger striking down the discriminatory “Proposition 8″:“Today’s federal ruling strikes down a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should never have become law and affirms that the freedom to marry belongs to every American. As the first court to strike down race restrictions on marriage said in 1948, “the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.” There is no gay exception in the Constitution to personal choice and the right to marry, and there is no good reason to continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
Judge Walker’s decision will be appealed and litigation will continue, but what we witnessed in the clear light of his courtroom cannot be erased. The witnesses, evidence, and arguments all demonstrated what we’ve long known: exclusion from marriage harms committed same-sex couples and their families, while helping no one, and the unjustified and unfair denial of marriage to same-sex couples violates the United States Constitution. The judge’s ruling reflects the growing consensus in courtrooms and legislatures across the country, and around the world, that there is simply no good reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.
As today’s trial court ruling is appealed and defended, there is much left to accomplish across the country. 44 states continue to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry, and federal marriage discrimination persists. Today’s win provides increased momentum to the national movement to end exclusion from marriage. But the courts don’t operate in a vacuum, and we must work to maximize our chances of winning down the road. The crucial work of changing hearts and minds, securing the freedom to marry in more states, and ending federal marriage discrimination is more urgent than ever, in order to build on today’s momentum and encourage other decision-makers to do the right thing and end exclusion from marriage.”
–
Freedom to Marry is the leading campaign working to win marriage nationwide. We partner with organizations and supporters across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from the responsibilities, protections, and commitment of marriage.
From MassEquality:
MassEquality Statement on Proposition 8 DecisionBOSTON, AUGUST 4, 2010 – Statement by MassEquality Interim Executive Director Paula Herrington on U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger
“This is a tremendous victory in the movement for justice and equality. When the claims of those who oppose our right to marry are examined judiciously, they quickly fall apart. This case featured the collaboration of two legal superstars from opposite ends our cultural divide: Democrat David Boies who represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court after the 2000 presidential election, and Republican Ted Olsen who represented George Bush. In this case, they shared one thing in common: a willingness to look beyond bumper sticker slogans to show what really happens when families are denied legal connection and protection.
“We hope that the moral clarity of Judge Walker’s ruling provides comfort to the millions of Californians – and other Americans
who have suffered as a result of meanspirited and divisive ballot campaigns that have denied them access to the basic right of marriage.”###
MassEquality works to achieve full equality for the LGBT Community. We’re protecting marriage equality and promoting a full Equality Agenda in Massachusetts and supporting other states in winning marriage equality.
From HRC:
Federal Court Declares California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
Trial Judge Rules that Ban on Marriage Equality Violates Guarantees of Equal Protection, Due ProcessWASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign – the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization – today praised the historic decision of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared that the amendment to the California Constitution barring marriage for same-sex couples, adopted in November 2008 as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
“After hearing extensive evidence in support of marriage equality, and essentially no defense of the discrimination wrought by Prop 8, Judge Walker reached the same conclusion we have always known to be true – the Constitution’s protections are for all Americans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We thank the courageous plaintiff couples, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies for their tremendous efforts leading to today’s decision and their ongoing commitment as the case moves forward on appeal. The battle for marriage equality continues, and we must all continue our work – in courthouses and statehouses, in church pews and living rooms – until equality is reality for LGBT people and our families everywhere.”
In response to a 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court ending marriage discrimination in the state, anti-equality forces succeeded in placing a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. Despite over 18,000 same-sex couples having married, California voters adopted the amendment, known as Proposition 8. After the California Supreme Court determined in 2009 that the adoption of Prop 8 did not itself violate the California Constitution, two plaintiff couples — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – filed suit against the State of California in federal court, represented by attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies and supported by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The proponents of Prop 8 intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the amendment. Judge Walker held a historic trial in January, in which the plaintiffs presented substantial testimony and evidence to show that Prop 8′s only purpose is to discriminate against same-sex couples. Both sides have previously indicated that they would appeal Judge Walker’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the case may ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
# # #
From The Task Force:
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responds to ruling
in Prop. 8 caseWASHINGTON, Aug. 4 – The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to today’s ruling in California’s Proposition 8 case.
Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force“This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families. From the start, this has been about basic fairness. Today we celebrate the affirmation of this fundamental principle; tomorrow, we are back out there sharing our personal stories and having conversations with Californians and people all across the country about why this matters and who we are.
“The tide is turning nationwide in favor of marriage equality, but our work is far from over. Today’s ruling is just a beginning step in what will likely be a long process, yet we are confident that fairness will prevail. Our conversations are breaking down barriers and helping to transform our country.”
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s work in California
Since the passage of Prop. 8 in November 2008, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has continued to work on the ground in California with state and local partners to restore the freedom to marry. Its priority remains bolstering local organizing designed to persuade voters to support the freedom to marry. Through partnerships with Equality California and the Vote for Equality project of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, volunteers are being trained to talk face to face, door to door with former Yes on 8 voters about marriage for same-sex couples.These conversations are yielding important insight into voters’ barriers for supporting the freedom to marry and are showing success at changing attitudes towards marriage. Additionally, Task Force organizers are providing ongoing skills training to a wide range of local leaders to support long-term community change that includes, but is not exclusive to, marriage equality. In early June, the Task Force organized the California LGBT Power Summit, which brought together more than 130 leaders for an intensive skills training in volunteer recruitment, fundraising, door-to-door canvassing, and working across lines of racial difference.
To learn more about the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, visit www.theTaskForce.org
and follow us on Twitter: @TheTaskForce.
30
From PFAW:
PFAW Statement: Federal Judge Overturns Proposition 8
A federal judge in California today overturned Proposition 8, the state’s law that prohibited gay people from marrying. Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker wrote, “is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.”Michael B. Keegan, President of People For the American Way, issued the following statement:
“This is a historic day for California, and for our country. Proposition 8 took away the freedom of committed couples to make what is one of the most important decisions in any person’s life-to make a lifelong promise of caring, responsibility, love, and protection for another individual. Now, like the thousands of other California couples who have been barred from marrying who they choose, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier can have security of knowing they can receive legal protections for their family, visit each other’s hospital rooms when they are ill, and provide for each other in old age. They now have the freedom to make that lifelong commitment to each other.
“This decision is an important step in the right direction, but there’s a lot of work left to do. We will continue to work toward making America a place where all couples can enjoy the freedom and security of marriage.”
National Stonewall Dems:
National Stonewall Democrats Applaud Perry v. Schwarzenegger Decision“Religion-based bigotry should never outweigh constitutionally-based guarantees of equal protection.”
WASHINGTON, DC – Proposition 8, which banned marriage equality in California, was overturned today by the US District Court of Northern California. National Stonewall Democrats applauds the decision by Judge Walker which stated that “…(A)nimus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” The ruling also went on to say that ” rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.”
“Religion-based bigotry should never outweigh constitutionally-based guarantees of equal protection, especially when thousands of California families are at risk,” said National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Michael Mitchell. ”Judge Walker unequivocally affirmed that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution and that it includes lesbian and gay couples. It’s a great day for same-sex couples, and it’s a great day for all Americans who value equality under the law.”
“As the case inevitably finds its way to the US Supreme Court, I am reminded of the 2000 campaign when it was commonly held that the two candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush, were virtually indistinguishable. Imagine what a different world we’d be living in if this case were going to ultimately land in the laps of a Court that was headed by a Gore appointee instead of Chief Justice John Roberts. Elections matter, whether it’s the razor thin elections that resulted in two terms for George W. Bush, the election that gave us the spiteful Prop. 8, or the one this November that could hand over Congress to Republican control. Republicans will certainly turn back every gain that LGBT Americans have seen under the Obama Administration”
ACLU:
California Marriage Ban Struck DownACLU Hails Historic Decision And Urges Efforts In Other States To Ensure Success On Appeal
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2010CONTACT: Robyn Shepherd, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
SAN FRANCISCO – In a landmark decision today, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that excluded same-sex couples from marriage in the state, violates the United States Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Lambda Legal filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case supporting the argument that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
“Today’s decision is a huge victory for the LGBT people of America. For the first time, a federal court has conducted a trial and found that there is absolutely no reason to deny same-sex couples the fairness and dignity of marriage,” said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. “At the same time, we know that this is not the end. In order to give this case the best possible chance of success as it moves through the appeals courts, we need to show that America is ready for same-sex couples to marry by continuing to seek marriage and other relationship protections in states across the country. It’s simply not fair, and not legal, to continue to exclude committed same-sex couples from marriage.”
Center for American Progress:
STATEMENT: John Podesta Applauds Prop 8 OverturnThe Center for American Progress applauds U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger today to overturn California’s Proposition 8. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution. Six months later, voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state’s Constitution to ban marriage for gay couples.
John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, said, “Judge Walker’s decision reaffirms the Constitution’s command that all Americans must receive ‘equal protection of the laws.’ Prop 8 is incompatible with our Constitution and a long line of precedent rejecting laws that single out a certain class of Americans for disfavored legal status. Today’s decision does nothing more than restore the Constitution’s promise to millions of American couples. Because Constitutional precedent so clearly rejects Prop 8, I have every confidence that this decision will be upheld on appeal.”
Jeff Krehely, Director of LGBT Research and Communications at CAP said, “Today’s ruling is a huge step forward in the movement to achieve full equality for LGBT Americans. The public increasingly supports fairness and equal rights for all, including allowing gay couples to marry. Although this ruling does not end the larger marriage debate, it is a clear indication that opponents to LGBT equality are fighting a losing war.”
Charlene Strong, a Washington State Human Rights Commissioner
Today’s Prop 8 Ruling Reaches Beyond California’s Borders
Seattle LGBT Advocate Charlene Strong Sees First Step to Overturning DOMA
Human Rights are Not Special RightsSEATTLE – August 4, 2010 – Today a federal court ruled that California’s Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative which banned same-sex marriage in the state last November, unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses. This decision is critical as its ramifications could reach beyond California’s borders to challenge the federal ban on same-sex marriage known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Charlene Strong, a Washington State Human Rights Commissioner whose personal story of courage in the face of inequality helped to pass landmark domestic partnership legislation, is working hard to see that DOMA is overturned. She sees today’s ruling as an important first step in that process.
Laws barring full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are the last examples of state sponsored discrimination in the United States. Without full equality at the federal level, LGBT people will continue to be second class citizens, unable to fully participate in all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits of United States citizenship.
“Today’s ruling is very good news. LGBT rights are not special rights. These are human rights,” Charlene Strong says. “Anyone who says otherwise, that all citizens are not entitled full equality in our country is speaking from their own personal bias and nothing more. This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with who you love.”
There is a patchwork quilt of same-sex marriage protections in the states. But whether protections are termed “marriage,” “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions,” all of these rights stop at the state border. ”There are no protections for LGBT people at the federal level. That is over 1,138 rights we don’t have that are available to opposite sex couples,” Charlene reiterates. These rights include social security survivor benefits, tax incentives for married couples, the ability to transfer property and more.
“I look forward to working with Equal Rights Washington to empower people across the state to talk to their friends and family about the importance of marriage equality and the lives of gay and lesbian families,” Strong relates.
“I am an American and I am proud of that. I am not fighting for my rights alone — I am standing up and fighting for every gay and lesbian couple who pay their taxes, contribute to society and who want the same protections every other American is afforded if and when they choose to marry.”
Note from Lurleen:
Help elect fair and impartial justices to Washington’s state Supreme Court!If this decision shows us anything, it’s the importance of election fair and impartial justices to the bench. This election we have to opportunity to replace two confirmed homophobes on the Washington state Supreme Court with fair-minded justices Stan Rumbaugh and Charlie Wiggins. Time is ticking because Rumbaugh’s race will be decided in the Aug 17th primary.
Donate to the Equal Rights Washington PAC this week and your contribution will be matched by a generous donor! ERW PAC is dedicated to electing fair and impartial judges and pro-equality legislators.
~~~~~
Adds from Autumn:
From San Diego Supervisor Candidate Stephen Whitburn:
STEPHEN WHITBURN STATEMENT ON PROP 8 RULING
Contact: Barry KleinFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
917-239-5493San Diego, CA, August 4, 2010 – Stephen Whitburn, candidate for San Diego County Board of Supervisors, has issued the following statement regarding today’s ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to overturn Proposition 8.
“Today is a great day in America,” said Stephen Whitburn. ”The Courts decision restored equal justice under the law and made it clear once again that separate is not equal. We all know discrimination is ugly and we must be vigilant to fight it wherever it arises.”
Stephen Whitburn is an award-winning journalist, community advocate, and spokesperson for the American Red Cross. As a member of the North Park Planning Committee, Stephen has worked hard to address the problem of increasing crime, boost the supply of affordable housing, and promote neighborhood businesses. Stephen has been outspoken in his belief that we need our County government to provide greater resources for job creation and fire protection, and has been appalled by the inaction of our Do-Nothing Board of Supervisors. He has helped pass the city’s living wage ordinance, and fought to defeat statewide ballot initiatives that would have endangered a woman’s right to choose. Fluent in Spanish, Stephen has been a liaison to the Latino community on public education for the American Red Cross.
GLBT Community Center of Colorado:
GLBT Community Center of Colorado applauds decision deeming Proposition 8 in California unconstitutionalFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2010CONTACT:
Heather Draper
Communications and Marketing Manager
The GLBT Community Center of Colorado
303.733.7743 x101
303.847.7152 (cell)NOTE: Carlos Martinez is available for interviews until 6 p.m.
DENVER — The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado (The Center) applauds the ruling today by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that Proposition 8 in California is unconstitutional and should be repealed.
Walker ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution’s equal protection and due process rights clauses.
“Although the battle for equality is far from over, this ruling shows it’s unconstitutional to deny the LGBT community equal protection under the law,” said Center Executive Director Carlos Martinez. “This should lead to a national standard instead of the patchwork of state laws we have now.”
Martinez and his husband, Phil Danielson, were married in California in 2008, but that marriage is not legally recognized in Colorado.
Marriages between people of the same sex are not recognized in Colorado because of the state’s constitutional amendment passed in 2006 defining marriage in this state to be between one man and one woman. Several laws passed in recent years do, however, provide some protections to LGBT Coloradans.
Jason Cobb and Jason Prussman were also married in California during the brief time such marriages could legally be entered into. Their son, Jacobb, was the ring bearer during their ceremony.
“This ruling is a huge step showing that separate is not equal and that marriage is a fundamental right in this country, not just for some, but for all people,” said Jason Cobb. Both Cobb and Prussman are attorneys in the metro-Denver area and have followed the litigation in California closely.
Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, but the legal challenges could take some time. ”The litigation battle to overturn Amendment 2, the anti-gay ballot initiative that would have precluded protections at any level to protect LGBT Coloradans, took many years before ending with the correct result,” Martinez said.
The opinion in that case, written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, famously stated:
“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.
In May 2008, California’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the equal right to marry under the state constitution. That decision was effectively overruled when Proposition 8 was approved by voters on Nov. 4, 2008 by a 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent margin. About 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California between June 17 and Nov. 4, 2008.
The day after the vote, three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were filed in the California Supreme Court.
The GLBT Community Center of Colorado is the only statewide, nonprofit community center dedicated to empowering and advancing Colorado’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population. It serves as a catalyst for community organizing, support services, social activities and cultural events. To learn more about The Center, click here.
-end-
Equality California:
Federal Court Decision Overturns Prop. 8August 4, 2010
Federal court deems marriage ban unconstitutional
San Francisco — Today the U.S. federal district court overturned Proposition 8 on the grounds that the ban prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional. The case now moves to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In response to the ruling, Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, which filed an amicus brief supporting the Prop. 8 federal challenge, issued the following statement:
“We are thrilled with today’s ruling, which affirms that the protections enshrined in our U.S. Constitution apply to all Americans and that our dream of equality and freedom deserves protection. Judge Walker has preserved our democracy by ruling that a majority cannot deny a minority group of fundamental freedoms. This is as much a victory for the soul of our nation as it is for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who will be directly impacted.“We are truly indebted to Ted Olson and David Boies and to the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We owe Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown a great deal of gratitude for their unprecedented decision not to defend this discriminatory measure. While this is a great success, we also know that the road to restore the freedom to marry could be a long one and that we must do everything in our power to protect this incredible victory. Equality California will do its part by working to elect a governor and attorney general this fall who refuse to spend tax-payer dollars to overturn this decision. We are also ready to battle the National Organization for Marriage this fall to keep their toxic agenda out of our state.
“Finally, together with thousands of volunteers we will keep sharing our stories in communities throughout California so that we continue building public support for the freedom to marry, which is essential to permanently restoring marriage equality in California.”



95 Comments





Yes!Wheeeeeeee!
Link to decisionhttp://metroweekly.com/poliglo…
All right!Tonight, we celebrate! Tomorrow, we keep marching on!
Yeah! Oh, yeah!
Excellent!
This brings tears to my eyesWe are not second class citizens–for now, anyway, and yes I know this is just about California. But it’s a start and it’s a shot across the bow of bigots everywhere.
Yahoo!With lots of hugs and love to Blenders from Keori, me and Snooky. K and I were crying when she read me the ruling…
YAHOO!!!!!!!!Cue screams of “judicial activism(tm)” in 5… 4… 3… 2…
I sincerely hope the bigots appealRight now, this ruling applies only to California. If the 9th Circuit agrees with Judge Walker, then same-sex marriage bans would be overturned in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona… in every state that is within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.
It is my sincere hope that this is the Rubicon of marriage equality.
I wonderwhat our “fierce advocate” is going to say on this.
And Gay Org PARASITES are already trying to take their bite….
The WORTHLESS, LUDICROUS Courage Campaign has already e-blasted people with requests for donations to allegedly pay for their:
STUPID! STUPID!!! STUPID!!!!
AS IF any “moveable middle” person is going to take the time to read a transcript or attend a “dramatization” of a trial that doesn’t involve murder and/or sex scandal.
When someone wonders why we’re still not free 41 years after Stonewall, think of self-serving idiots like these!
As for the plaintiffs and their attorneys and funders and the judge: BRAVO!!!
Love you, Mom!!The decision has affected my ability to work here; I was supposed to upload something to CM/ECF, and couldn’t even get to it. Yes, the LGBT community crashed the Federal District Court’s Electronic Case File website.
Happy Second Wedding Anniversary to US!!And no stay was entered which means this takes effect on publication.
So how did he order it?Can gay couples get married now? When does this go into effect? Or did he block it from going into effect until all the appeals are over which could take years?
Key passagesAnti-marriage groups have no evidence same-sex marriage damages opposite-sex marriage
The kids are REALLY alright
But it’s icky and we don’t like it!Dismissing the “We don’t like it and what will we tell the children” arguments
Celebrate tomorrow?I’ve already downed my first beer. :)
When is publication?
We will hear only the sound of crickets until FridayWhen a mealy-mouthed and meaninglessly bland statement will be issued during the late afternoon news dump.
About half an hour agoGo forth and nuptualize :-b
No rational basis
Yea for us!It’s about time for a win on our side! Hope this is just the beginning of our equality!
I agree, Tech. If the bigots appeal-and they will, they’re not that smart-gay marriage will be in all 50 states instead of just five or ten.
Go ahead, bigots, appeal. Make our day.
These would be the very same organizations….… who stood adamant and shrill against any kind of federal appeal because “it was not the right time” and “rocking the boat” would lead to “very bad consequences,” right?
Fuck them, and may they rot in Hell. Soon.
Woot!!!
yaaaaay!w00t indeed! today didn’t start out too well for me, but it’s getting a lot better!
Woot!We win you lose. Sorry about the millions you spent failing at life.
Only binding in the Northern California DistrictCorrect me if I’m wrong, but this decision is only binding in the Northern California District and persuasive in the other three districts. A separate suit would need to be filed in the other California district (Central, Eastern and Southern) to address this issue for all of California without a decision from the 9th District Appellate Court.
It would be a smart move on NOM’s part not to request a stay and not appeal this to the 9th District.
Great News!!!Congrats From Ireland, i very pleased the judge threw out this discriminatory law!!!!!
Still at work…Lucky you! I’m just glad that the butterflies in my stomach are gone!
Sorry not excitedCall me a cynic but now im just fucking nervous. No one i mean no one is that stupid…NOM and all the anti gay bastards are up to something insidious. I feel it.
This case looked more like a ‘testing waters’ kinda thing.
ENOUGH!!!I dont need any more quotes from gay groups, post some of the responses from the Christian Right so we can point at them and laugh.
Fruit basket?If and when that happens, should we send them a fruit basket with a thank you card? =P
LIVE CONVERAGE NOW FROM SAN FRANCISCO [2:22 PST]..
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/liv…
Yes, now, and openhowever, there is not a ruling on the request for stay yet.
There will be a separate thread.Their comments, hate and nastiness aren’t appropriate on this thread…
IMPORTANT QUESTIONDid he grant a stay of gay marriages until appeal is done or can gay couples marry again? Or is that a separate decision to come later?
There IS a stayORDER granting [706] Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Doc #705 on or before August 6, 2010. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal has been decided. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)
Although with parties to the suit from the Southern DistrictI believe the plaintiffs could appeal this to the 9th District Appellate Court to resolve discrepancies between District Courts within the 9th District.
Walker’s decision is very matter of fact, supports strict scrutinyStill haven’t read all 138 pages, but scanning the major passages, it appears that Judge Walker has laid out the arguments from both sides, then step-by-step dismissed every single basis for not allowing same-sex marriage.
There is no airy rhetoric or leaps of logic. Just a methodical, in parts almost plodding, rebuttal of each argument. Since appeals in the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court will be based only on evidence presented, this is hugely useful and important.
A key section begins on page 109 where he states
If piece of the decision stands, then Walker has broken significant new ground for the protection of LGBT rights and it will be virtually impossible for a ruling against marriage equality.
SAN FRANCISCO TV STATIONS TO CHECK FOR COVERAGE OF CELEBRATORY EVENTS, ETC….
Castro rally, followed by march to City Hall scheduled to begin at 5:00 Pacific time tonight.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/index
http://cbs5.com/
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/
http://www.ktvu.com/index.html
http://kron.com/
So much to cheer aboutQuoted from Huffington Post (where I am proud to be a blogger):
Amen.
Celebrate this moment!The Judge’s language is very strong–stating plaintiffs overwhelming presented evidence that Prop 8 violated their due process and equal protections violating their constitutional rights.
I think the language is very, very good. I am happy in this moment and want to celebrate. Worry about organizing tomorrow.
Cheers to all of us and especially to those who brought this case and argued it effectively for victory. We will march tomorrow.
Tanya
I hope you’re rightI hadn’t considered that.
This decision has my wife and me very happy.
Before this whole Prop 8 thing, I would have been completely opposed to legal opposition to something that was voted on by the people.
But the rights of others is just plain something that people shouldn’t have right to vote on, IMO.
It should never have been on the ballot.
cheering hereI hope Maggie Gallagher and Tony Perkins have SUCH ICKS!!!!!
Important ruling!I had thought for a few moment till I turnedon the radio and found that the greyfaced assassins of joy got their request honored to be able to delay and invalidate more wedding days while they drag this out, but this is a much stronger and less-waffly ruling for freedom than I’d expected.
Still cause to celebrate, though!
Might I suggest a fruit pie?Bring in a not-too-subtle remind of Anita Bryant getting pied by gay activists.
Well PoohThat’s kinda sucky.
More on strict scrutinyOn pages 116-117 Walker states that Prop 8 is subject to strict scrutiny (higher standard) before dismissing it using rational basis (lower standard).
SLAM DUNK!!!
I had that reactionWhen, in Massachusetts, I heard one bright day that I was suddenly able to be married.
Quite honestly, I didn’t know what it was even like to have that freedom until it was there. …I suddenly actually felt like a real person that day, in ways I didn’t even consciously know I was missing as such.
And Prop 8 taking it away from some was therefore one of the worst things I ever heard.
Clearest statement on strict scrutinyAs presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review.
Accordingly, the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review. Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976) (noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21.
That willNEVER get old.
From Americablog- A Call To Action
Take Cover!!Fundie head explosion imminent! Brain matter splatter expected to be extensive!
The ruling is BRUTAL.I keep expecting to run into the word “fucktards.” Am I allowed to use that kind of language here? Well, I do.
Wonderful quote from David Boieson how they will get Supreme Court to maintain Walker’s decision: “Ted and I have already talked about this and agreed that he will get the five justices who ruled in favor of Bush v. Gore and I will get the other four.”
It still boggles my mind that the two attorneys arguing for marriage equality were the ones on opposite sides of one of the most divisive Supreme Court cases in U.S. history.
Teachable MomentWell, at least Petey will have a new topic of discussion for all 2 of his pupils at his “Truth” academy.
IndeedThe whaaambulance driver is not getting any sleep tonight.
Help elect fair and impartial justices to Washington’s state Supreme CourtIf this decision shows us anything, it’s the importance of election fair and impartial justices to the bench. This election we have to opportunity to replace two confirmed homophobes on the Washington state Supreme Court with fair-minded justices Stan Rumbaugh and Charlie Wiggins. Time is ticking because Rumbaugh’s race will be decided in the Aug 17th primary.
Donate to the Equal Rights Washington PAC this week and your contribution will be matched by a generous donor! ERW PAC is dedicated to electing fair and impartial judges and pro-equality legislators. http://bit.ly/aKB0Sq
over at faux news…they have a poll … Do you agree with the decision … and one of the options are …
No — Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don’t care what the judge thinks about the Constitution.
(and it has 68% of the votes of course)
In other words WAAAAHHHH… we lost and don’t care whats right or wrong, we just want our way… Bigots are always so childish ….
ha ha
This is a solid winIt’s only that some can and apparently will try to contest the ruling (that people have fundamental rights)
They’ll drag it out and talk ugly and use it politically and agitate against us, but this is good precedent. Very good.
This is a solid winIt’s only that some can and apparently will try to contest the ruling (that people have fundamental rights)
They’ll drag it out and talk ugly and use it politically and agitate against us, but this is good precedent. Very good.
Yet no one at Foxever protests about Rush being on his 4th marriage and Newt on his third.
Marriage is a DISPOSABLE institution…
TONY PERKINS ON CNN!Hee!
What can you say?A pie for a pie…. :)
CNN reporting statement from the White House!
Stop trolling for identifying infoAnd consider me signed.
Finally! About time he started to make good on that whole idea my vote was good enough! :)
‘If the people lead, the people will get impatient with leaders.’ :)
OK, OK, …but that is a bet I am glad to lose.Happy Birthday Mr. President.
Yeah, exceptWalker’s ruling nullifies a clause of the California constitution, therefore it affects the entire state.
That made me laugh…I needed that
I read it alland he demolished every single “argument” from the proponents, half of them based on their own side’s evidence and testimony. Very carefully reasoned, thoroughly documented, citing numerous precedents. This is a solid ruling.
That would be something to kvell over!
I agree. I hope they appeal and I hope they rip through all the funding they can muster, just to lose. I hope this is the cause that bankrupts the opposition.
Thanks from the Yanks
Take a Xanax
Wow..that is super cool
Cosign, TechBearThey all said nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…don’t do it!
It’s minimal.He will continue? How about starting?
I agree, Smarty!But since when has Scalia, Roberts and Thomas ever cared about the Due Process clause? All they want are special rights for the elite, the upper class and the executives.
A very strong rulingThis ruling is a textbook example of the the word “magisterial”.
His 20 page dissection and dismissal of the proponents “expert” witnesses was extraordinary. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read a number of rulings and never seen anything like this — point-by-point Walker destroyed the credibility of the only two people who gave “expert” testimony in favor of Prop 8.
We’ll see.It’s now a sort of race — hopefully the appeals will take long enough to get to the SCOTUS (with marriage legal during that time) that the composition of the court will have changed enough that they’ll rule on the facts of the case instead of using it as an excuse to see how far to the heterosexual-supremacist right they can shift precedent.
If I read this one rightIt looks like we didn’t just win, didn’t just ace it, we got all the bonus levels as well.
- the findings of fact will stick in the craw of haters everywhere
- gays should be a suspect class and anti gay laws should be subject to strict scrutiny… meaning, if it goes national, every anti gay law everywhere will have to justify itself or become unenforcible
The best partUltimately, the strongest part of the whole decision is on page 24:
That just about sums it up. It doesn’t matter what the voters, or the politicians think – there is no legitimate justification, and as such, it is unconstitutional.
For you, Michael BedwellI got this awhile ago from Betsy Smith of EQME; read this and tell me we in Maine aren’t damned lucky to have the folks we have!
In my mind, this is LEADERSHIP AND CLASS. Not asking for money- asking for VOLUNTEERS.
I don’t know if I have said very often publicly how much I appreciate the friendship and leadership of my friend Betsy, whom I like and admire SO much. She and everyone at EQME have been so understanding and gracious to this newbie to the “Land of LGBT Activism”…
In re: Ted Olsen; One of my favorite,quotes from Albert Einstein in the ’50s, a reporter asked him, “Dr. Einstein, if you had known what people would do with your work in ending the War, would you have done it?” To which Dr. Einstein replied, “I think I would rather have been a watchmaker.”
I understand what it is to love one’s work. I can even see how “winning” can be more important than the consequences. But, after all of these years, I don’t understand how Ted Olsen doesn’t have a full, Mennonite-style beard, because if I’d helped install George W. Bush, I’d never look into a mirror to shave again…
My takeCross-posted elsewhere:
I just finished reading the whole 136 page thing, and having some fun conversations with a couple lawyers. Yes, I hang out with lawyers – so sue me.
In all seriousness, this is as as good a ruling as it was physically possible to do. He found that there was grounds for strict scrutiny, but that it wouldn’t pass a “rational basis” test. He also found that it violated due process, and that it lacked an appropriate secular justification.
He gave the opponents every claim they asked for, explained (in length) the qualifications of an expert witness, then ripped the one “expert witness” they had a new one.
Basically, he worked hard to make this as likely as possible to survive appeal – he was deliberate, methodical, thorough – made certain to cover every aspect of the trial. He covered the both sides, and their qualifications and relationship to the trial.
In appeals, you appeal on the basis of problems with the trial – you don’t get to introduce things from elsewhere. By doing as good a job as he did, he significantly reduced the number of points they could appeal on.
Basically, you could throw out 75% of this ruling, and prop 8 would still be struck down. Nothing is a guarantee, but this is literally the best possible ammo to fight with.
It is an unquestioned, unmitigated success so far – had we waited, we couldn’t have gotten a ruling any better, and could quite possibly have had one much worse.
Huzzah! Horray! Hurrah!It about time we had a huge victory that puts the ravings of those who supported Prop 8 and who oppose same sex marraige where they belong – in the garbage dump of history.
That includes President ‘gawd’s in the mix’.
Looks hard to overturnThis is cross-posted from 538.com
Grounds for appeal typically include errors of law, fact, or procedure. So they need to convincingly argue that Walker is wrong on every single finding of fact and/or law in his overturning of Prop 8 on both Due Process and Equal Protection causes. If not, Prop 8 is thrown out.
By my count there are three findings to overturn based on Due Process and two based on Equal Protection.
Due Process
1. The right to marry the partner of one’s choice
2. Domestic partnership do not satisfy California’s obligation to allow same-sex couples to marry (with two separate arguments to support this finding)
3. Prop 8 denies a fundamental right without a legitimate reason
Equal Protection
1. Prop 8 fails the rational basis test – Walker lays out SIX separate ways it fails
2. Prop 8′s conclusion that same-sex couples are inferior is not a proper basis for legislation
So appellants have to invalidate every one of these points and/or Walker’s interpretation of the law, or find the judge somehow made an error in carrying out the trial.
Given how each finding is closely reasoned and well-documented with evidence and precedent using both strict scrutiny and rational basis standards, I find it difficult to believe Walker would be overturned on fact or his interpretation of every one of his points on the law.
Is there an error in how Walker conducted the trial? I’m not a lawyer and couldn’t begin to tell. But the man has 21 years on the bench and has presided over many major high profile cases. He was originally nominated by Reagan and appointed by Bush I and no one can argue he’s a liberal activist judge. They might try to make a case that as a gay man he should have recused himself, but one of Walker’s early decisions was against the Gay Games, so bias could be difficult to argue.
I think this will go all the way to the Supreme Court in the next two years or so and will eventually be upheld.
An Fox is leading the chargeOn their front page they have:
“FOX FORUM: Media Ignores Judge’s Bias”
Yet again Fox is claiming not to be part of the media. WTF?
To paraphrase Gandhi: A pie for a pie… makes the whole world fat.
PHOTOS from the NYC Prop 8 rallyIf you weren’t able to attend one of tonight’s celebrations, I encourage you to check out the photos I took at the NYC rally: http://smg.photobucket.com/alb… I’d say there were around 200 people there.
Congrats Cali !!!!!!:D:D:D:D!!!!!!!now let’s finish it get full marriage equality throughout the US!!! so happy right now
Brain matter splatter?That requires some brain matter which we’ve seen they lack.
Good Point!