Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage
August 04, 2010
A federal judge in California has overturned Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that barred legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Judge Vaughn Walker said that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, insofar as it “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation." The ruling will undoubtedly be appealed.
The defense of Proposition 8, the judge said, "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” The federal court ruling reverses the result of a previous finding by a California state court, which had approved Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state’s constitution. The voters of California had approved the measure in response to a court ruling that required state recognition of same-sex unions.
For all current news, visit our News home page.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Aug. 05, 2010 7:18 AM ET USA
I waited until the NY Times came out to comment. It is true that the judge based his decision on "facts" instead of law, and that will be difficult to overturn, because the idiots who defended the California law ignored the natural law argument against same sex "marriage." Then Associate Professor Doug NeJaime at Loyola Law School, which I believe calls itself a Catholic university, said the decision was "great." God help us when Catholics defend sexual abuse.
Posted by: dancingcrane -
Aug. 04, 2010 10:34 PM ET USA
A corrupt culture destroys itself. First we cheapen marriage into meaninglessness, then we argue that marriage must be protected for procreation and stable families' sake. Come again? Contraception, abortion, infidelity, divorce? No wonder the evidence didn't sway the (gay) judge. Our culture disemboweled marriage long ago. Thomas Jefferson warned us about activist judges corrupting democracy. Pray for strength, we're going to need it.
Posted by: ColmCille -
Aug. 04, 2010 8:27 PM ET USA
The rational basis for denying homosexuals a marriage license couldn't be more plain if it smacked that silly judge in the face. Marriage, by nature, is between a man and a woman, involving both the union of the two and procreation. Besides the fact that homosexuals cannot procreate, it is a fact that one will not find a single case of homosexual marriage in any society in history (any more than one will find men giving birth). It's nature is self evident and historically supported.
Posted by: New Sister -
Aug. 04, 2010 5:36 PM ET USA
We need to purge the Judicial Branch of this country's government. Basta
Posted by: Defender -
Aug. 04, 2010 5:30 PM ET USA
Nowhere does the Constitution say anything about a license, either. Following this kind of logic, a teenager can demand a driver's license because he/she wants one...We need to reconsider having federal judges appointed for life, too, there are far too many who seem to be morally inept. It also seems that these judges don't care what the people vote for in a democracy - I guess that's part of being a lawyer, too.