Gays celebrate as judge throws out marriage ban
Gay couples celebrated today after a judge overturned California's same-sex-marriage ban.
The ruling by Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker could eventually force the US Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.
Outside the court in San Francisco, cheering gay couples waved rainbow and American flags.
Shelly Bailes embraced her wife Ellen Pontac as Ms Bailes held a sign reading "Life Feels Different When You're Married".
In New York City, about 150 people gathered in front of a lower Manhattan court, carrying signs saying "Our Love Wins" as organisers read portions of the ruling.
Judge Walker made his decision in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.
The ruling "vindicates the rights of a minority of our citizens to be treated with decency and respect and equality in our system," said former US solicitor general Theodore Olson, who delivered the closing argument at trial for opponents of the ban.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also hailed the ruling as an important step towards equality and freedom.
But Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal against the ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defence team.
Despite the favourable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately.
Judge Walker said he wanted to decide whether his order should be suspended while the supporters of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by tomorrow on the issue.
The appeal would go first to the 9th Circuit then to the US Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
California voters passed the ban, called Proposition 8, in November 2008, five months after the state supreme court legalised gay marriage.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and encourage responsible childbearing.
Judge Walker, however, found it violated the state constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage licence".
"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," he wrote in his 136-page ruling.
He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animosity towards gays - beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.
"Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Judge Walker wrote.
The judge heard 13 days of evidence and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states could prohibit gays from getting married.
Former US Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and the US Congress accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father".
Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington DC.
The ruling puts Judge Walker, a Republican, at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the long-time federal justice.
He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists.
As a lawyer, he helped the US Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 5th 2010, 17:27
The constitution of the United States says, quote
" TO THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE '
The people voted in favour of prop 8 and won 54 to 48 percent, but then a supreme court judge in San Francisco overturns the ruling. So much for " BY THE PEOPLE". Did this judge find a loophole in the constitution or did he decide on his own to change the constitution. Why do people bother to vote if they are not accounted for? The people voted and no judge has any right to over rule the will of the people, but then since when did the people get their way, ever?
Zachary Stewart
Aug 5th 2010, 22:36
You understanding of our constitution is rather shallow. It is the responsibility of government to protect the rights of minorities and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly calls for equal protection under the law for all US Citizens. By creating two classes of citizens (those who can wed and those who cannot), proposition 8 was in direct violation of this clause. I challenge you, Joseph Calleja, to point to a section in the US Constitution that provides for a general referendum on the rights on minority US citizens. You will find none.
C.Mercieca
Aug 6th 2010, 09:39
get your maths right....54+48 does not add up to 100...for the record it's 52....A law which favours 52% but denying the remaining 48% is in its very nature discriminatory and not favouring the ABSOLUTE majority
Edward Hughes
Aug 5th 2010, 14:54
i have nothing against couples of the same sex getting marred, in fact why not?! there's absolutely nothing wrong with it! Religion is only an entity you believe in by choice and should not have the right to decide for society what is right or wrong. This is just the same for divorce! divorce provides and option in life in case your current marrage doesn't work out the way you wanted it to. why should you not marry again and start over? every one has the write to try again!
david camilleri
Aug 5th 2010, 13:53
Great to see progress in the world!
Many religious people wont be happy with this...but of course, they are against divorce.
Make up your mind...its either you want people to be married or you don't
oh...i forgot. love and marriage take place between a man and a woman...how silly of me!