Unconstitutional - Prop. 8 (H8te): California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge in California has struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying Proposition 8, passed by voters two years ago, is unconstitutional.   Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote that Prop. 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

To read Walker's complete ruling click here.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the judicial process, saying "all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings."


"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity."

The 136-page decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy legal fight over California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The conclusions of law by Judge Walker begin on page 109. Here’s a choice quote from page 111:

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse.

From page 113:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

From page 135, “CONCLUSION”:

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. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

After so much news of fear and hate we have news of hope.  Why would anyone want to deny any two people the right to be happy and the same rights as they do?