Big news: According to a source who has seen the 136-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Walker has ruled Proposition 8, the California voter-approved ban on gay marriage, unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses. We’re staying tuned and will report more details when we get them.
Update. Here’s the pdf — you’ll want to check the kerning, though, to see if it’s real.
bmcchgo
First? And teh gay? Happy B-Day Mr. President! Here’s to the Rule of Law….
TooManyJens
They’ve updated the post, including this quote from the conclusion of the decision:
me
Activist Judges!
Lev
That would be great news. Prop 8 is to us Californians what Banning MLK Jr. Day was to Arizonans back in the 90’s.
geg6
FUCK YEAH!!
beltane
Suck on that, wingnuts!
General Stuck
Wetsuit sales are going to soar.
Comrade Mary
Awesome!
jacy
Yippee! Good news for a change!
geg6
OT, but also good news courtesy of Nancy SMASH:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/pelosi-to-call-back-house-for-key-vote-on-jobs-bill.php?ref=fpblg
licensed to kill time
Two snaps up and around the world!
Ripley
OT, sort of: Looks like BJ/DougJ are the first to run this on the (saner) lefty blogs. Huzzah.
Now: off to propose to a goat & brace for the rapture. Good times, good times.
malraux
Awesome news if this stands.
Chris G.
And on President Obama’s birthday! If the AZ ruling had come down today as well the teabaggers would have all spontaneously combusted.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Lev: Just remember, Arizona would reimpose the ban if they could find a way to do it without losing tourism money.
Allan
Andy Pugno can lick my sweaty balls. Legally.
Bulworth
Heh. Indeedy.
asiangrrlMN
Holy hell. Some good news at last! Fuck, YEAH, bitchez!
@geg6: I love me some Nancy SMASH! You tell them, Madame Speaker of the House!
beltane
@Chris G.: Their heads keep exploding, but the little bits and pieces left over continue to spout crazy-talk. We are living in a horror movie of sorts.
Midnight Marauder
This is awesome. I am going to be partying all over West Hollywood tonight!
HOORAY FOR THIS!
MikeJ
What paperwork is required to file for a divorce in California? If marriage equality is going to destroy marriage, shouldn’t we pass out the paperwork at mega churches this weekend to help those poor people?
Dave
Does this mean I’ll wake up gay tomorrow?
stuckinred
Anybody read the doc to see if it is immediate?
suzanne
One step closer to making the world fit to leave behind to my children.
I’m so happy I’m crying.
Brachiator
And Alex Rodriguez just hit his 600th home run
And on Obama’s birthday. Must be something in the air.
Ned R.
A fine day, this.
kimba
This is a fantastic idea.
Scott
Huzzah!
It’ll get appealed, of course. But still — HUZZAH!
Spaghetti Lee
@Brachiator:
Oh, why’d you have to go spoil the mood?
BombIranForChrist
Suck it, Prop 8!
Also, I look forward to the strict constructionists doing the GOP’s political bidding on the Supreme Court. I wonder what pretzel shape they will turn themselves into this time.
kdaug
To wit: If they can remove freedoms from someone, they can remove them from anyone. That’s the bright line.
Davis X. Machina
“Rational basis” is the easiest burden legislation must meet to be discriminatory, yet not un-Constitutional, and Prop 8 seems to therefore have fallen at its first hurdle.
freelancer
Small Gov’t Bitchez!
TooManyJens
@stuckinred: Probably not, because the ruling will be appealed:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15675497
Crashman
So, will this be appealed? How far can/will it go?
Btw, everyone needs to get on Twitter right now. There are some absolute gems floating around there now.
matoko_chan
alhamdulillah!
:)
General Stuck
OT
Just signed Obama’s online birthday card, and wish to share the note I sent with it.
signed proud Obot.
somebody get the fainting hankies for our resident firebaggers/
mslarry
awesome!!! plus the judge was appointed to the CA Supreme Court by Bush I… shove it wingnuts. also
Violet
Excellent news.
Ironic, too, given that I was just reading a mailing from a religious organization stating how sad they were that the larger ruling body of this group wasn’t united in stating that marriage was between one man and one woman, cuz that what it sez in teh Bible, an’ all.
Brachiator
@Crashman:
This has got to be headed to the Supremes. The right will never let it go.
stuckinred
@TooManyJens: THX!
BOO
stuckinred
@General Stuck: Fuck em if they can’t take a joke.
Violet
@geg6:
Oooh! NANCY SMASH! Love her, love her, love her!
Blue Neponset
Whoo Hoo!!!
I wonder how long it will take to ruin traditional marriage.
Felonious Wench
Oh FUCK YEAH!!!!!
About damn time.
rob!
I hope Judge Walker has a bodyguard and a home security system to protect him from the Wingnut onslaught.
MazeDancer
@stuckinred:
Is it immediate my immediate question, too.
Reading it now. The conclusion says enforcement of Prop 8 no longer can happen. So that might mean the old equality laws would now stand. Because it was Prop 8 that kept them from being the current law. Those laws weren’t repealed. Just prevented.
But haven’t found any “Clerks, start the ceremonies” line.
stuckinred
Pete Williams on MSNBC is saying the ruling says NO stay.
General Stuck
@mslarry: And to top it off, one of the chief attorneys for the plaintiffs, I think, is one of their own in Ted Olson.
suzanne
Now we can all marry GOATS! Woooohooooo!
In all actuality, marrying a goat would have been a better idea than marrying my ex-husband.
stuckinred
@MazeDancer: Everybody LIMBO now!!!!
stuckinred
@suzanne: easy
dadanarchist
I’m afraid to cruise over to Memeorandum…. The Wingnut ragegasm must be of biblical proportions….
freelancer
JC, you may be at 30,000 ft right now, but dig TNC embarrassing the shit out of your guest-blogger. Sane conservative = mealy-mouthed, equivocating Tom Friedman. I mean this, but not really because I’m leaning towards that, have-it-both-ways bullshit prose.
Iz in UR coop, fukkin UR chikkenz.
JGabriel
BombIranForChrist:
It won’t matter. Once it gets to the SC, it’s over – they’ll legalize gay marriage on a 5-4 vote. I’m assuming that Kennedy, who voted to legalize hot gay anal sex in Texas, will also vote to allow people to get married before they have hot gay anal sex in California.
It would be unconservative to only permit people to do it extramaritally.
.
ajr22
The whole anti gay marriage crowd has always puzzled me. How can anyone be so against something that has no impact on their life. These people spend money, and vote for politicians to stop this stuff. Then all the politician has to do is bash on gay marriage and his constituants are happy. All the while, he is probably whoring himself out to corporations, who will in turn bone the constituents in the ass. Oh the Irony!
Anya
@suzanne: I thought it was a horse. My boyfriend’s family have horses, so I should be worried.
Xecky Gilchrist
Good news!
Next up, revoking the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church for pushing this Prop Hate shitpile.
Yutsano
@stuckinred: Rulings are usually stayed pending appeal. It’s just another hoop in the process. I believe the next stop is the 9th Circuit, AKA the most liberal in the country. This gets writ of certiorari by the end of the year.
Hal
Idiotic tweet/Facebook posting from Sarah Palin to commence in 5, 4, 3…
BTW, Yay! I thought the chances of this happening were supposed to be slim, but I guess not.
Brachiator
@Crashman:
By the way, from an LA Times article, here are some of the challenges that next face the decision:
Link here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/prop_8/index.html
flukebucket
First the Muslim Family Life Center and now this.
Seems like the world is coming apart for the haters.
Tonal Crow
I was depressed about America’s state earlier today, but this decision is sure helping me beat the blues.
Thank you Judge Walker!
Nellcote
I wonder if Judge Walker being gay will enter into the inevitable appeal.
JGabriel
stuckinred:
The Prop 8 people have already filed for a stay with Walker. That means it’s immediate unless the stay is granted – which seems unlikely given the “no rational basis” language in Walker’s ruling.
.
El Cid
Clearly it’s time to repeal Article III of the Constitution.
ajr22
I have heard good christian woman are rushing to California to marry horses. Don’t you see what we’ve done!!
Wannabe Speechwriter
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I suddenly want to have sex with a box turtle! Damn you gays!
celticdragonchick
I’m popping a bottle of Champagne tonight. Seriously.
Allan
The state of CA must resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The final section, Remedies, indicates that the state must cease enforcing Prop 8, which would revert us to the conditions preceding its passage, where same-sex couples like us could pay our fee and receive a marriage license.
In a nice touch, the judge pointed to the 18,000 or so of us who were licensed in 2008 as evidence that the state is administratively capable of resuming without delay.
gwangung
Gotta wonder…is the written decision on the level of the Dover decision; i.e., a butt kicking and butt hurt of the first degree for wingnuts?
asiangrrlMN
@Tonal Crow: I wrote almost exactly the same thing in another blog. I am actually a bit teary over this.
Davis X. Machina
What’s the ‘irreparable harm’ Cali is going to show to get an emergency stay? Gay marriages were not licit, then they were, then they weren‘t again, all in the space of a year or so, without chaos ensuing.
Whatever harm the state would have to claim is going to happen, would have already happened in the earlier window, apparently without dire consequences. We survived whatever the alleged irreparable harm was during that time, so the harm couldn’t have been irreparable. Why is now different
Nellcote
Can the prop8ers go venue/court/judge shopping or do they have to appeal in the same district?
JGabriel
Nellcote:
Good lord, I’d completely forgotten about that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Prop 8 supporters raise it as an issue, but can’t see how it could possibly help them.
Seems as though it would be more likely to inflame sensibilities, and smart lawyering would focus on finding faults in the decision rather than the decision-maker.
.
arguingwithsignposts
Just finished reading part of the decision (pdf link). I highly recommend reading from p. 109 to the end.
This was a good quote:
Ash Can
Glory hallelujah! What great news!
Punchy
/scouring Pets For Sale for “box turtles”
Edit: Dammit, #68 beat me to it….
El Tiburon
FAB-U-LOUS!
Brad Hanon
This is great news for conservatives.
Seriously. They’ve got no legislative agenda, no substantive issues, and Fox News and Rush won’t allow them to suggest any policies that might help voters, or at least hurt them less. They have NOTHING.
Except now, going to the circuit court and then the Supremes, they can scream themselves hoarse about gay marriage on a national level. Does it have any serious political relevance? No. Does it have any effect on the lives of most Americans? No. But does it fire up and distract their base like nothing else on earth? Oh my my, oh hell yes it does.
Newt Gingrich is jizzing himself right now, and so are Sarah Palin’s handlers.
freelancer
@gwangung:
I skipped to the end, but it’s pretty damning. I haven’t come across anything as noteworthy as “breathtaking inanity” yet, but just calling it “unconstitutional” with the requisite force Walker gives is enough to make Drudge bust out the police siren. They lurve the Constitution, so this kicks ’em in their fee fees.
HumboldtBlue
Remember, that one of the lawyers for the good guys was Ken Fucking Starr.
JGabriel
Nellcote:
Everything I’ve read indicates that the Prop 8ters have to appeal to the 9th Circuit, where they’re almost certain to lose – the 9th has a reputation as the most liberal of the Circuit Courts. Then it would go to the SC, where they’re almost equally certain to lose – no guarantees, but Kennedy is pretty sure vote on this one.
Bmaz has nice preliminary write-up at Emptywheel’s site.
.
Davis X. Machina
@arguingwithsignposts: Oh, dear. You don’t want an appellate judge taking that tone with you…
That sound you hear is knuckles being rapped. She’s insinuating that the law is not just bad law, but dumb law….
arguingwithsignposts
Also, the judge did bring up in that section that the state itself did not argue in favor of prop 8 in this case, which seems telling. IANAL, but the language didn’t seem like he was too inclined to issue a stay.
Joshua Norton
But…but…Walker is teh gay!! Only a straight judge could have ruled correctly on this case. Just ask Fux Noise.
SB Jules
@Chris G.:
Wouldn’t that have been fun!
matoko_chan
it is a wunnerful b-day present for our Magical Unity Pony.
see how well this played out?
if O had campaigned against prop 8 in 2008 (like many wanted him to) we would still have DOMA for another half century.
wellplayed!
its that quantum game theory.
;)
Davis X. Machina
I’m inclined to think that this isn’t the general election magic bullet that many GOP bigwigs will think it is.
In the depths of a not-quite-Depression, is ‘Let them eat straight’ really enough to run on?
arguingwithsignposts
@HumboldtBlue:
I thought it was Ted Olsen and David Boies.
JGabriel
@HumboldtBlue:
More importantly, one of the lawyers was Ted Olson, former solicitor general for the Bush administration, lead attorney for Bush in Bush v. Gore, and Federalist Society founder.
As former SG, Olson has extensive SC experience.
.
Genine
Oh, Happy Day!
Haters may seem to win in the short term, but in the long run- not so much!
This is wonderful news.
Dorothy's friend
Dear close-minded fuckhead,
Not only are we going to seduce you and your children right in the middle of combat, we are going nullify your marriage and force you to marry us instead – Love TheGays
freelancer
Now I see why all the wingers want to repeal the 14th Amendment. It’s not just the citizenship clause, it’s also the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.
Nimm
Yes.
It is a very, very forceful and unequivocal opinion.
Prop 8 violates both the Due Process AND Equal Protection clauses. On the latter point, it even fails “rational basis” review, which is usually the legal equivalent of the free center square on a bingo card.
He also based the opinion heavily on his findings of fact and evaluations of witness credibility, which will make it even more difficult to overturn (although the SCOTUS will ignore that, if it wants a different result).
It’s a real gut punch of an opinion.
Midnight Marauder
@Nellcote:
Because it certainly never came up during the trial. Wingnuts are too classy for that. From February of this year:
NobodySpecial
From the Yahoo article on this, it appears part of the decision involved Prop 8 running afoul of…
…the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yep, now the teabaggers will have a new reason to get rid of that one.
fasteddie9318
So how and when will I know that my otherwise happy marriage has been ruined by teh gheys getting married?
Midnight Marauder
@arguingwithsignposts:
You would be correct. The specter of Ken Starr has no place here.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Others have the snark and legal strategy covered, so I’ll just say hip-hooray and let it go at that.
Best news in months.
This is a BFD /Biden
arguingwithsignposts
Re: stay, the AP says:
That’s a pretty quick turnaround – Friday.
gex
Let’s just wait and see. For the last 17 years, America’s response to being told that excluding gays violates equal protection and due process has been to amend constitutions. We still have this Supreme Court and these American citizens to get past to see if this holds. And so far citizens have been willing to amend constitutions and overturn legislation, so I’m not holding my breath.
fasteddie9318
@NobodySpecial:
Lay off, man, they’re just trying to get back to the original intent of the founders! Plus wouldn’t repealing the 14th bring back 3/5 personhood for the, you know, Kenyans? So that’s at least three reasons to can it, from a teabagger perspective.
Mary
No. Ken Starr was represented the bad guys in the state Supreme Court case. You’re thinking of Ted Olson.
Nellcote
@arguingwithsignposts:
Ken Starr was with the defense of prop8. Olsen is with the good guys…and gals.
asiangrrlMN
@Midnight Marauder: Well, yes he does, but he was on the wrong side of history.
ETA: Damn me and my need for linkage!
@fasteddie9318: When you find yourself in a wide stance in the Minneapolis airport–oh wait, that just means you’re a closeted Republican.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@fasteddie9318:
When you are sitting at home one quiet night channel surfing the TV and come across a gay wedding reality TV show on Bravo that makes you feel like a total style loser for having that football kegger wedding.
trollhattan
@JGabriel:
The legal team for overturning P-8 were A-listers and, one presumes, would/will be part of the Supreme Court appeal process.
I wonder how the Mormon church is feeling about their investment now? A little like Whitman is going to feel come November, I’ll bet.
p.s. Thing 2, Carly F., has finally cleared up where she stands on Kagan. Thanks Carly, at last I know what to think.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/08/fiorina-says-she-opposes-kagan.html
Davis X. Machina
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: I dream of a day when straight and gay Americans can have football kegger weddings, and thereby achieve immortality here.
Alex S.
wonderful, slow but steady….
The ruling makes it sound so reasonable.
Loneoak
That ruling was an epic, epic, smackdown.
Some choice phrases:
– “fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents’ proffered rationales”
– “Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough”
– “suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.”
Of course it will be appealed, but it’s critical to note that appeals do not typically challenge the finding of facts, only the reasoning about how the law ought to apply to those facts. Judge Walker straight-up curb-stomped the Prop H8ers’ arguments and that will stick with them all the way through the appeals. Scalia will not be able to dispute the fact that there is no rational basis for discrimination and no evidence of harm caused by same-sex marriage, he will only be able to argue straight up about the right to discriminate against suspect classes for arbitrary reasons. Which he might do, but damn if that’s not a hard row to hoe.
HumboldtBlue
Thanks for the correx, folks. Got my wingnutty lawyers completely confused.
Scaposcat
This ruling should give Republicans a boost in November. Get ready for the landslide.
Xanthippas
Look, all I want to know is if this judge has financial connections to the oil industry. Because that would completely undermine his judicial independence and this ruling is a farce.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
It’ll get appealed, of course
To the same Court that decided Bush vs Gore…
Nellcote
@HumboldtBlue:
.
Completely understandable. I was shocked when Olsen signed on.
Kyle
This will no doubt cause the destruction of Rush Limbaugh’s 4th marriage.
wobbly
Ah, my nephew and handsome Rex the Filipino are legal again!
Now they will have pay a lawyer to break their relationship up, just as Auntie had to with hers, back in the day.
Legality does have its downside.
Mnemosyne
Just to help demonstrate how this thing got passed in the first place, I told my boss (who is a very smart woman) that Prop 8 got overturned, and she said, “Okay, so does that mean that gay people can get married now or they can’t?”
That was the underrated genius of how Prop 8 was written — you had to vote “no” if you did want to allow gay people to get married and I do think a fair number of voters got confused.
Mnemosyne
@wobbly:
I just texted G to let him now we can now recommence asking his brother when he’s going to find a nice boy and settle down, because he’s not getting any younger, you know …
gwangung
@Nimm: I was hoping so (and I thought Dover was one of the most entertaining decisions in the past few decades…..).
Davis X. Machina
There won’t be a sober probate lawyer in California tonight.
Finally, an economic-stimulus measure for practitioners of family law. Standing by, watching the bankruptcy bar raking it in… can’t have been easy.
LanceThruster
I’m pretty sure kerning is still considered deviant behavior…like felching.
Froley
The new HBO movie starring Robert Redford and Bob Balaban as Ted Olson and David Boies, respectively.
10 years ago, they fought bitterly on opposite sides for politics. Now they fight together … for love. See the riveting legal drama “A Civil Union”.
Nellcote
@arguingwithsignposts:
Go JB!
cmorenc
@Davis X. Machina:
Don’t get me wrong: I fervently wish we had the sort of US Supreme Court that would be inclined to uphold civil liberties, including upholding today’s ruling by the Federal District Court in California.
Unfortunately, we don’t, and here’s the upshot of today’s ruling when it reaches SCOTUS:
1) There are four highly likely votes for not just upholding prop-8, but making it as sweeping a ruling as possible on as many grounds as possible (rational basis, equal protection, state’s powers reserved under 10th amendment for just three).
2) Justice Kennedy will in the end be inclined to vote with the four conservative justices, but basing his vote on much narrower grounds in a concurring opinion. He’ll mumble around to find reasons to draw lines between this case and Lawrence v Texas which held criminalization of consensual sodomy unconstitutional, which he will reaffirm was good law (since Kennedy wrote the opinion in that case).
3) SHOULD one of the four “conservative” justices die or be forced to step down while Obama is president, but the Prop 8 case is still pending in the federal courts, this would raise the struggle over selection and confirmation of the next Justice to not merely earth-shaking proportions, but galactic cluster-colliding proportions.
Considered from the perspective of social justice, it would be a great day if the prop-8 proponents lose in the end before the SCOTUS, and anti-gay marriage laws were held unconstitutional. But it would add more political energy to the social conservatives (just like Roe v Wade did over the long term) .
Considered from the perspective of long-term political advantage, it would be a short-to-possibly-medium term defeat if SCOTUS upholds prop-8, but in the long run it will run counter to the inexorable broadening trend across society toward acceptance and recognition of gays and gay rights. The effect would be to add considerable energy to progressive and pro-gay rights forces across society.
I would rather SCOTUS uphold the lower court (i.e. against prop-8). However, since the stronger realistic bet is that SCOTUS upholds prop 8 by a 5-4 vote, IMHO we’ll probably wind up with the latter overall impact (lose for now on the law, gain politically in the longer run)
KCinDC
@Mnemosyne, unfortunately it looks like there were more mistaken votes that went the other way (people who voted “no” because they wanted to say no to gay marriage).
(Though my confidence in that study is a bit shaken by the way they give numbers that are precise to the person.)
Jay C
My first reaction when I read of Judge Walker’s decision invalidating Prop. 8 was to go online (to a classy venue like Balloon Juice, of course) and put up a post something to the effect of:
HA HA HA!!! STRUCK DOWN, YOU ASSHOLES; STRUCK DOWN!!!11!! FUCK YOU, YOU HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTS!! HA HA HA!!!111!!
But then I realized it would sound too much like gloating, so I thought better of it…..
Tom Hilton
In his Lawrence dissent, Scalia said the majority decision would lead logically to gay marriage. When Perry gets to the Supreme Court, we’ll see if he really meant it.
I have a feeling he’ll conveniently forget.
Davis X. Machina
I respectfully dissent.
Scalia and Rehnquist stoked Kennedy’s vanity in Bush v. Gore and they convinced him that only he could be the Judge who Saved America…and that he stopped the tanks in the streets.
It’s going to take a helluva pitch to make his contradicting his own decision in Lawrence a similar act of unselfish patriotism, because the alternative was what, buggery in the streets?
Brachiator
A commenter on Andrew Sullivan’s site makes the following observation about recent gay marriage decisions:
Bear this in mind as conservative pundits bloviate about librul activist judges.
gwangung
And against Kagan, that’s going to be an even harder task, I think.
Mnemosyne
@cmorenc:
Unfortunately, I share your pessimism — Kennedy is going to vote with the conservatives on this one because it’s “marriage,” and that makes him think of religion and God, not contracts and licenses.
gwangung
Why? There’s just as much good ammo saying that Kennedy won’t cave in to his prejudices. Moreover, he would have to find some flaw in the legal reasoning in the decision, which is going to be a lot harder given the pitiful arguments given by the pro Prop 8 people.
Tom Hilton
@Davis X. Machina: And better still, Judge Walker ruled that sexual orientation is a suspect classification (hence the proper standard is strict scrutiny). That wasn’t even necessary to invalidate Prop h8 (because it couldn’t even pass the rational basis test), but it does have important implications for all aspects of gay equality.
FlipYrWhig
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Which is not to say that, like with almost every other show on Bravo, you won’t still think, “God, I’m so glad my life doesn’t compel me to be anywhere near these horrible, selfish, arrogant people.”
Yutsano
If y’all haven’t read Marc Ambinder’s run-down you should. It’s amazingly fact-filled.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/prop-8-overturned-the-facts-not-the-law-matter/60957/
trollhattan
@Davis X. Machina:
Worse. Gay tanks (shudder). Yes, deadly and FABulous.
Davis X. Machina
@Tom Hilton: That I missed. Gender itself is only an intermediate-scrutiny class, isn’t it?
fasteddie9318
@Kyle:
Rush is only on marriage number four? Seems like it should be more than that.
Then again, maybe the appropriate question is: how did that ignorant, foul-spirited bag of pus manage to find four women willing to marry his worthless ass?
Davis X. Machina
Pecunia non olet.
Yutsano
@fasteddie9318: Money. The best female aphrodisiac in existence. Plus no doubt someone on his staff arranged their meeting and courtship. Rush doesn’t exactly seem like the dating/romancing type.
EDIT: Or what Davis said. Better than I could too.
Tom Hilton
@Davis X. Machina: I think gender is strict scrutiny, but don’t hold me to that.
Here’s the relevant excerpt (p.122):
Tom Hilton
@Yutsano: That is good…and it reflects the fact-intensive decision. Judge Walker really laid the groundwork carefully for this one.
Davis X. Machina
@Tom Hilton: I’m running on ERA-era memories, and that by itself tells you how fallible they are likely to be.
MikeJ
@Davis X. Machina: You haven’t had to be married to get a divorce since Marvin v. Marvin in ’76.
JGabriel
Tom Hilton:
Scalia will vote against gay marriage, just as he voted against the majority in Lawrence. But Scalia’s right about it leading to gay marriage, because, having voted to legalize gay sex, why would Kennedy vote to condemn all gay sex to non-marital status?
.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“Then it would go to the SC, where they’re almost equally certain to lose – no guarantees, but Kennedy is pretty sure vote on this one.”
I don’t get the same level of confidence from the Emptywheel post that Kennedy’s vote would be in the bag for the anti-Prop 8 side. Can you spell it out a bit more?
If true though, I would pay *serious money* to see the look on Scalia’s face if the SCOTUS supported the U.S. District Court striking down Prop. 8.
noncarborundum
@MikeJ:
Now I’m feeling guilty. Gay marriage has been legal in Mass. for six years now and my wife and I still haven’t filed for divorce. Just lazy, I guess.
gex
@Hal: Actually, it has not been difficult to find courts that are willing to rule this way. That’s what triggered it. In ’93 Hawaii’s court issued a similar ruling and that is what has inspired the last 17 years of demagoguery against the gays. And unfortunately most of the states that have issued constitutional amendments against this have done so in the last 6 years.
It remains that 30 states already have amendments, and 40 states have explicitly banned SSM via popular vote. I’m doubtful they can get a federal amendment, but don’t think they won’t try again and don’t fool yourself that it *can’t* happen.
Tom Hilton
@JGabriel:
Oh, of course–I was being a little snarky there. Because we’re all familiar with Scalia’s intellectual honesty and respect for established precedent.
[/moresnark]
Original Lee
@Brad Hanon: This. It will get out the wingnut base to vote in November like almost nothing else will.
Davis X. Machina
@Original Lee: I think it was planning to vote anyways. Something about ‘Kenya’….
Corner Stone
Finally. It can all be told.
Original Lee
@Davis X. Machina: The birthers are the only ones who get hung up on Kenya. The GOP was hanging its hat on health care reform and immigration reform prior to today, but it’s hard to get their people motivated enough to vote on complicated issues like those. Gay marriage is very simple, though, therefore has better voltage for energizing their zombies.
Bubblegum Tate
@dadanarchist:
Here’s a good one: striking down laws for being unconstitutional violates the constitution!
JGabriel
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan:
The level of confidence is my own, not from Marcy. And my reasoning is simply that I think Kennedy is more likely to follow fellow-conservative Olson’s reasoning on this issue, given Kennedy’s own written decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
From Wikipedia:
Kennedy simply doesn’t have the animus towards gays that Scalia and Thomas possess. I feel pretty confident that Kennedy is both persuadable, and will be persuaded, that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
.
Yutsano
@Bubblegum Tate:
That didn’t even fly in conservative Catholic Ireland. I’d love to see how exactly Noonan will make that happen here, especially with gay marriage running near majority support.
Bubblegum Tate
@Yutsano:
But he has no choice! Not being allowed to hate gays is simply intolerable!
Lysana
Governor Arnie has congratulated the court for making the right decision. The state failed to argue for Prop 8, leaving the heavy lifting to the civilian bigots lined up against it. They proceeded to shoot themselves in both feet and the genitalia for good measure by admitting marriage is a fundamental right under oath. And private interests are very unlikely to be allowed to appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. The state of CA would have to file that.
Any bets on half the CA attorney general’s office taking a sudden four-day weekend?
robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles
I’m glad. Fuck Prop 8.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
Kiss me, you fool.
PaulW
things of note:
1) This ruling does not affect heterosexual marriages. They can still hold those.
2) This ruling does not affect lonely people. Sad, lonely people sitting at home never knowing any happiness at all.
3) This ruling does not affect marriages between men and horses. It’s still legal in some southern states.
4) This ruling does not affect marriages between humans and Kryptonians. So the whole Lois Lane/Superman deal is still good.
5) This ruling does not affect marriages between witches and mortals. Although it won’t stop your witchy mother-in-law showing up and turning you into something wacky on a weekly basis.
Hope this clears everything up.
PaulW
@robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles:
And now, thanks to this ruling, you can!
SBJules
@Lysana:
If he takes a four-day weekend, it’s because he suddenly decided to actually campaign against Meg Whitman. Our attorney general is Jerry Brown.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
B..b..b..b..b..b..b..b..b..but it changes the meaning of those marriages.
Because the Baby Jesus only wants marriage to be between one man and one woman. If you look closely at a painting of the Baby Jesus, you can see that this is what he wants.
I liked the line from the Last Comic Standing show the other day. When we all hated negroes, we didn’t want them to marry our daughters. Now that we hate gays, we want them to marry our daughters?
Lolwhut? Have we really thought this through?
Chris G.
@JGabriel: I’ve listened to the Bush v. Gore oral arguments. Olson’s participation in this case made me far, far more optimistic than did Boies’.
Nellcote
@Lysana:
Only to celebrate. Here’s AG Jerry Brown:
“In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry without a sufficient governmental interest.”
Queen Meg still supports prop8 though.
mclaren
Yet more evidence that the effort to “Stand athwart history and shout `Stop!'” is doomed.
burnspbesq
@Yutsano:
I’ll take that bet. The Ninth may be liberal, but it’s also the most backlogged of the circuits. Example: Xilinx, one of the more important tax cases in recent years, was decided by the Tax Court in 2005. The Ninth didn’t issue its opinion until 2009.
Emma
Woooooot!
Emma
Woooooot!
asiangrrlMN
@Yutsano: Careful with the generalizations, hon. Some women don’t give a shit about money and power. You happen to be fake-married to one of them.
@Original Lee: You know, probably. But you know what else? That’s still like twenty-seven percent of the population. And, during times of economic crisis, the cultural war stuff doesn’t usually have the same effect it does during more prosperous time. And, if the Dems are smart (yeah, I know, big if), they will hammer home the bloviating as a distraction from the issues at hand. I actually think less people give a shit about this ruling in CA (after all, queers can still legally marry in other states like Mass), but that’s my rarely-seen optimistic side coming out.
Finally, I just don’t give a shit if the right clutches their pearls about this. Social justice never comes easily and there is never a time when the haters will not hate.
Corner Stone
@asiangrrlMN:
I would suggest that it’s the opposite.
During times of stress the culture war stuff gives people a chance to identify, and be part of an “in-group”. It solidifies their status and leads to groupthink against the “other”.
They’re scared and desperate to have someone else to focus on.
Yutsano
@asiangrrlMN:
True. But they’re not exactly lining up to marry the sad grumpy fuck.
(h/t FH #1)
asiangrrlMN
@Corner Stone: Hm. You could be right. I will have to think about it some more.
@Yutsano: Yes. I got into an argument with a coworker back when I was at the county during the Clenis scandal. She said she could see how power is intoxicating, blah blah blah. I didn’t get it at all, and I still don’t. Irony point–she, as an intern, went on to do pretty much the same thing with one of the bigwigs in our department.