California judge strikes down gay marriage ban - Macleans.ca
 

California judge strikes down gay marriage ban

Law ‘fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians’


 

A federal court judge in California has ruled that Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in the state, is unconstitutional. Two years ago, the law against gay marriage won in a statewide referendum, but Vaughn Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee, declared that the Proposition 8 “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” and is simply based on the unprovable notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. The ruling, which resulted from a challenge brought by the unlikely team of Ted Olson and David Boies (lawyers who were on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore in 2000), is being appealed to a higher court, and could lead to gay marriage getting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time.

New York


 
Filed under:

California judge strikes down gay marriage ban

  1. Proposition 8 “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,”

    Well, of course it does. There was nothing rational about it from the get-go.

  2. Congratulations, California.

    • Yes & No. The decision was good, but oh how Americans can waste time on useless things. Think of the wasted resources on this thing. Marriage is not such a successful institution that it should never be changed!

  3. After 10 yrs together,I married my husband in Toronto in 2003. As current CA residents we are thrilled with Prop 8 being overturned. Civil rights should NEVER be subject to a popular vote.

  4. Same-sex rights inevitably lead to the violation of the natural right of a child to know the complementary love of both his father and mother. Same-sex rights can only be considered rational if there are no rights to children associated with male-male and female-female pairings.

    • Should we also ban single parent families? Always grant custody to both parents in divorce proceedings (even if one parent is a criminal or drug-addict)? Children don't have a natural right to have two parents (if we are talking about nature, children don't really have any right to have parents).

      I agree that there are advantages to two-parent families, in terms of specialization of labour. I just can't see why their parents must be of different genders. For one, gender is not as binary as we think. It is probably more accurate to describe gender as a spectrum. Moreover, I am not sure that gender is a particularly good predictor of parenting attributes. Men can be doe-eyed nurterers, and women can be gruff hardasses – and I know more guys that are into cooking than girls.

      The basic prerequisite for any family successful is love. Intelligence, skills, looks – all pale before this one basic attribute. A good parent is somebody who does what it takes to protect, nurture, and teach their child. Biological ties and hormones are a poor substitute.

      As to natural, nature creates all kinds of family arrangements. Here is a video of a crow raising a kitten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYrnNi0n-hk

      • According to evidence presented during trial, while there is a clear advantage for children to have two parents, there is no difference in outcome whether those parents are of the same or opposite gender.

        • This conclusion is unsurprising. Why would there be a difference?

  5. If marriage came from religion and religion forbids homosexuality, what rights do homosexuals have to determine that they have a right to marriage?

    • If marriage was still just a religious thing, what right does marriage have to LAWS in the first place?

    • And we come from apes which means… Oh God… statue of liberty? That was OUR planet! You maniacs, you blew it up!

    • The stoning of adulterers and a million other things–allowing to take neighbouring nationals as slaves, being denied a job with the Canadian Post Office because you're not an Orangeman/ are Catholic?– also came from religion. The separation of Church and State means not only Freedom Of Religion but Freedom From Religion. Churches as private organizations will not be forced to marry gays. (Really, name me one case of a gay couple who's tried to sue a church, demanding their unwilling priests/ministers do it anyway). Why are women allowed to work outside the home? Because rational society accepted that it's only right.

    • So many things come from religions. this is a weak argument. Guess what Gay marriage isn't mandatory. If it doesn't concern you, stay out it it.

  6. About darn time, congratulations California!

  7. Well, it's still early days because of course this will be appealed to the US Supreme Court. And as much as countries like Canada, Denmark or Netherlands are looked to as outliers, nay beacons, of civil rights, much still depends on the US Supreme Court either affirming this or striking this down. If the Supremes in DC agree that there is no reason to put heterosexuals on a higher pedestal of the civil plane, then it will send an important message to the rest of the world. But that's at least a few years away. Congrats to every couple– gay or straight– who will now get married in full compliance with the law of California.

    • Great comment, Derek, I second your desire for happiness and true equality of of all newlyweds..

  8. Repost!

    Actually you are completely right. Our understanding of what marriage is and what entails comes from Canon Law, not from Anglo-Saxon or Roman understandings of marriage.

    To the pagan Anglo-Saxons marriage was a matter between two parties, not the state. To the Romans it was the same. For while both of our legal forerunners punished breaches of marital agreements, the state didn't officiate over them or preside over their dissolution.

    For marriage to be a concern of someone other than the parties (and families) involved… well that is a legal innovation by the Church.

  9. Just join a different religion.