A Day Of Victory for Us!

I got a late start today, due to a very late night last night. But I woke up to emails telling me that Prop 8 was overturned!!!! I can’t believe it! It actually brought tears to my eyes. This is huge, but as we all know the battle is not over. There were appeals for Yes on 8 already underway before the final decision was even made.

BUT THIS IS GOOD NEWS!

I’m not a lawyer so I grabbed this article from the Prop 8 Tracker for you guys to see what’s been going on.

BREAKING: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

by Adam Bink

I just finished reading the meat of the decision. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 is unconstitutional on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. Huge win. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Developing…

UPDATE (1:43 PST): Here’s the conclusion from the decision.

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.

REMEDIES
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.

The full decision can be found here.

UPDATE (1:46): Other notable segment:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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.

UPDATE (1:53 PST): From Courage Campaign:

Federal Judge rules Prop. 8 Unconstitutional
Courage Campaign: ruling “an historic milestone for loving families and our nation as a whole.”

LOS ANGELES — In a landmark ruling released minutes ago in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has found that California’s ban on marriage equality — also known as Proposition 8 — violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“This ruling is an historic milestone for millions of loving families, for all who have fought to realize the dream of equality under the law, and for our nation as a whole,” said Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs. “While today concludes the first step in a legal process that could take up to two years, Judge Walker’s ruling is a landmark victory in America’s centuries long war against discrimination, and the result of months of extraordinary work by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, and courageous plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo.”

Judge Walker’s ruling follows a contentious battle over public access to the trial, two weeks of testimony back in January, defense motions to strike Prop. 8 campaign documents and its own witnesses from the official trial record, and five hours of closing arguments in June.

Together with CREDO Action, the Courage Campaign led efforts to get the Prop. 8 Trial televised — mobilizing 140,000 signatures in just three days after Judge Walker called for public comment on the issue.

After the defense successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block the order to televise the trial, the Courage Campaign launched prop8trialtracker.com: a live chronicle of the trial proceedings and testimony that Courage Campaign Founder Rick Jacobs — who attended every day of the trial — produced from within Judge Walker’s courtroom. The Prop 8 Trial Tracker has now been viewed more than 2.5 million times, generated more than 43,000 comments, and spawned the NOM Tour Tracker — a chronicle of videos, interviews, photos and first hand reporting on the Summer Tour of one of the Proposition 8?s biggest financial backers, the secretive National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

“History has already taught us that the biggest challenge for the cause of equality exists not just in courtrooms, but in the hearts and minds of the American people,” Jacobs added. “That’s why the public must hear the testimony presented in Judge Walker’s courtroom and that of the millions of loving LGBT families who have come to understand the destructive power of discrimination first-hand. It is clear that when presented with the truth about the millions of families who will be impacted by this decision, most Americans do not support the debunked myths and toxic rhetoric spewed by intolerant fringe groups like NOM.”

In collaboration with legendary LGBT activist Cleve Jones, the 700,000 member Courage Campaign’s educational arm, the Courage Campaign Institute, has also launched an unprecedented national public education campaign aimed at bridging the already narrowing gap between public policy and public opinion on LGBT equality issues. Called Testimony: Equality on Trial, the multi-year campaign will help activists create, film and upload public trial re-enactments and their own trial depositions on a central clearinghouse website, www.equalityontrial.org.

“Defense attorney Charles Cooper spoke volumes when he declared ‘I have no evidence’ to support second class citizenship for millions of American families during his closing argument in Judge Walker’s courtroom. He’s been proven right, and Equalityontrial.org is designed to collect the overwhelming evidence — the stories of the millions of families who live the fight against discrimination every day, and to present them to the leaders and everyday people who may be altogether unfamiliar with these experiences, but on whom the principles of equality under the law must ultimately be applied.”

UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.”

He goes onto write:

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.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

[...]

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.

More to come as I read through the decision.

UPDATE (2:11): I just saw Geoff Kors from EQCA on ABC News from Market and Castro in San Francisco, who said “it appears there has been no stay issued”. If that’s right, it doesn’t mean the Ninth Circuit could not issue a stay, which would prevent same-sex couples from getting married, but it’s worth noting.

UPDATE (2:16): Arisha just checked in from Missouri, where she is on the ground for the NOM event in St. Louis tomorrow (and won’t that now be a doozy). She’ll be getting some video reactions from folks on the ground that we’ll have up when we get them.

UPDATE (2:23): The American Foundation for Equal Rights presser with Olson/Boies/plaintiffs has started. I will provide notable updates for those of you who can’t watch/are out and about.

Share on Facebook