Gay marriage ruling to be issued Aug. 4 Elections, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Aug 4, 2010 at 10:06 am
A federal judge will issue a ruling Wednesday, Aug. 4, on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco announced today. A rally and march organized by gay marriage rights supporters in downtown Mountain View is set for at 6 p.m.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 6:08 PM
Posted by Paul_C, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2010 at 10:37 am Paul_C is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
Democracy is not mob-rule. The will of the majority cannot deprive rights of the minority. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.
"Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex in the same way that the Virginia law struck down in Loving discriminated on the basis of race. They could marry whoever they want, unless that person was the wrong race." -- Ted Olson, Web Link
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 anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.