Here is an excerpt from the ruling by the goodly judge whose facebook page has been loaded with congratulatory messages even from non gay folk and legal experts commended his position regarding the finding of fact and the American constitution. Of course President Obama has been coming in for some flack following his stance on not supporting gay marriage itself but his acceptance or tolerance of the lgbt ability to enjoy other rights has not gone down well on both sides of the fence, on one hand lgbt rights activists are up in arms and are demanding more that just a cursory recognition despite Obama being the most tolerant President to date while the right wingers are upset that it is his fault the onslaught of pro-gay moves and the push for the progressive agenda has gained momentum. Let us continue to watch these happenings meanwhile continue to go to http://www.glbtqja.wordpress.com/ and http://www.glbtqjamaica.blogspot.com/ for other highlights and posts.
Judge Walker among other things concluded in the matter of:
KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,
PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
official capacity as Governor of California;
his official capacity as Attorney General of California;
as Director of the California
Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics;
Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the
California Department of Public Health;
official capacity as Clerk- Recorder of the County of
Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his
official capacity as Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk for the
County of Los Angeles,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J
KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING
WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors.
PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL EVIDENCE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ORDER
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION" (page 132) .................
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus 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, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).
The evidence shows that Proposition 8 was a hard-fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. See Background to Proposition 8 above, FF 17-18, 79-80. The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 US at 571. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses.
The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. FF 79-80. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what those consequences might be).
he went on to conclude:
At trial, proponents’ counsel attempted through crossexamination to show that the campaign wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8,
Excerpt; Tr 132:25-133:3 (proponents’ counsel to Katami: “But the fact is that what the Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn’t that a fact, that that’s what they were referring to?”). The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It’s Already Happened(mother’s expression of horror upon realizing her daughter now knows she can marry a princess). The testimony of George Chauncey places the Protect Marriage campaign advertisements in historical context as echoing messages from previous campaigns to enact legal measures to disadvantage gays and lesbians. FF 74, 77-80. The Protect Marriage campaign advertisements ensured California voters had
these previous fear-inducing messages in mind. FF 80. The evidence at trial shows those fears to be completely unfounded. FF 47-49, 68-73, 76-80.
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
Plaintiffs 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.
VAUGHN R WALKER
United States District Chief Judge