Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Today is Day of Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 8 case

By

The Proposition 8 Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal court decision will be released between 1 and 3 pm Pacific time today (4-6 Eastern).  In brief, it is a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Prop 8 constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage for gay and lesbian couples.  Chris Geidner has written up an excellent FAQ on the details and ramifications of the case.  The decision will be posted online here.

A list of Day of Decision events can be found here.  The Boston plans are as follows

BOSTON: 6 p.m. | Copley Square @ Copley T stop on Boylston St

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. The opinion is long (138 pages!) but pretty interesting from what I saw in my quick read. A few highlights:

    <

    p>

    Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

    (pg. 77)

    <

    p>

    Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

    (pg. 85)

    <

    p>

    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…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.

    (pg. 113)

    <

    p>

    Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest…the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular…Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.

    (pg. 123, 125)

    <

    p>And the money quote:

    <

    p>

    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.

    (pg. 138)

  3. Did anyone see the lavish praise Gov. Schwarzenegger gave to this decision? He issued a press release today saying that: “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.”

    <

    p>Notice anything strange here? The Governator was the very person who vetoed two separate legislative attempts to enshrine these rights in California law. I mean, he’s on the right side now, but why did he veto that legislation if this is the way he really feels about the rights of gays and lesbians?

    <

    p>Perry v. Schwarzenegger? I think it’s more like Schwarzenegger v. Schwarzenegger.

    • There are mysogynists masquerading as protecting families (I won’t give any of these haters free publicity), several churches (I refuse to give any Churches of Hate free publicity, either) who in fighting equal rights, disenfranchise children from inheritance and child support, among other things…equal rights should mean just that – equal rights.  While each religion should be able to determine its own doctrine and rites, I just cannot get my mind to understand using religion to separate, to make less than, to not support monogamy and teach the dangers of promiscuity.  Anyway, kind of preachy, but this IS truly my opinion.  

    • which is extremely rare these days.  I’m certainly not a big fan, but he has, for instance, been on the right side of global warming.

      <

      p>He’s way out of step with his party!

      • Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for reasonable Republicans, and Ahnold is typically one of them.

        <

        p>I just wish he had signed the pro-marriage legislation into law in the first place. Especially when I think his current statements are a lot closer to his views when he vetoed the legislation.

    • …was that he wasn’t comfortable with the process and thought it should be brought to the people or somehow constitutionalized.  I would have signed if I had been in his shoes, but his name is on the case because it’s often the Governor who gets named when acting against the state, regardless of said Governor’s personal opinion of the matter.

      • He vetoed the bills because he felt legalizing same sex marriage would have been inconsistent with Prop 22, that the voters passed in 2000, which barred California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, but said nothing about marriages performed in California.

  5. Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder lays out the facts found by the court, which the Supremes will be bound to acknowledge, unless they can disprove them. They make bracing reading, one of those moments when cold, hard reason is emotionally inspiring. They also indicate that only by the rankest obfuscation and moral cowardice could the conservative bloc make its case and win over Kennedy.

    <

    p>

    1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
     
    2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

    <

    p>3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

    <

    p>4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

    <

    p>5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”

    <

    p>6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

    <

    p>7. Prop 8 proponents’ “assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”

    <

    p>8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

    <

    p>9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

    <

    p>10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”

    <

    p>11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

    <

    p>12. “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
    The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”

    <

    p>13. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
    stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

    <

    p>Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come.

    • I’d like to think so, but it will only take five justices to disagree.

      <

      p>Bush v. Gore was riddled with “facts” not in evidence.

      <

      p>But of course I am rooting for justice! and this is an impressive foundation for that.

    • Judge Walker’s finding of facts were complete and well-stated, and they indeed form the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come. They aren’t a silver bullet, though — the appellate court needs only to find that Judge Walker’s finding of facts was “clearly erroneous”, as opposed to affirmatively disproving them.

      <

      p>That’s still a high bar for the defendants to meet, so really it will come down to the law, and specifically whether the ban on same-sex marriage is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. That’s where I’m less confident on appeal. With the current Supreme Court, at this point I’d  prefer Prop. 8 to be overturned by vote before the case gets there (perhaps in the 2012 or 2013 term) and make this case moot. Not sure if that’s possible, though.

  7. This is the right thing to do, based on the fourteenth amendment. There should be equal laws for everyone.

    <

    p>When 2 people marry, they sanctify the marriage for each other. No other entity can sanctify it.

    <

    p>Government has no business getting involved in what kind of relationships are good or bad for a marriage, that is up to the consenting adults getting married.

Archives