The Decision in Perry v Schwarzennegger is for the Plaintiffs

[Dave (imported)]

>>Prop 8 is unconstitutional .

>>http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/20 ... -here.html

The REMEDIES are

(p 135)

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.

The FINDINGS OF LAW are:

(p109) Each class is independently meritorious as Prop 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

(p109) ... government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny.

(p 116) Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it denies the plaintiffs of a constitutional right without a legitimate (much less compelling) reason.

(p 121) ...the court determines that the plaintiff's equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.

(p121) The Equal Protect Clause renders prop 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review.

>>There is more. I'm a slow read in the middle of a fierce lightning storm and the power (hence the modem) keeps cutting out.

>>This is everything you would want in a ruling.

>>Congrats to Boies and Olsen.

[chibifish (imported)]

I think prop8 was overturned in Arkansas as well a couple months ago... but I don't remember exactly. :-/

[Dave (imported)]

For those who are interested:

Proposition 8 ruling excerpts from U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker [updated]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... erpts.html

A good explanation of how Prop 8 came about and why:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 1145.story

The Sacremento Bee

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/04/293648 ... t-for.html

The San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

[jemagirl (imported)]

I'm glad Judge Walker ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. I was worried that he wouldn't.

[saywhat (imported)]

I think this discussion belongs in the political forum? No?

[jemagirl (imported)]

I'm glad the basis of this ruling is rooted in the 14th amendment.

[Dave (imported)]

I think this discussion belongs in the political forum? No?

There is a thread in the POLITICS forum if you want to be political. Go there and have at it... However, for general knowledge of the breadth and scope of this decision, it belongs here.

This is your rights as GLBT people guaranteed a) by due process and b) by the Equal Protection clause.

It says your rights are not subject to the whim of voters or the whim of politicians, your rights are basic constitutional rights like free speech. Fundamental rights of the people.

For one thing, it finds as facts that children of gay parents are the same as children of heterosexual parents.

That is now indisputable in court. This proceeding was an evidentiary hearing -- it was a trial with witnesses and evidence -- and the judge found facts that contradict all the nasty and evil stereotypes and insults that have been shoved down our throats to make us feel like second class citizens.

So this does belong here. Sexuality and sex (gender) is no longer a reason to discriminate. We are equal under the law and in the body of legal writing that now exists.

And I add this: This isn't just that gay marriage is OK in California. This is so much broader than that. This is an equal rights win.

[transward (imported)]

Certainly I applaud the ruling, and a win at this stage is a whole lot better than a loss, but it is way too early to celebrate. Both sides have expressed determination to take it to the Supreme Court, and as was recently reported the current court is the most conservative in 60 years. I am good at worrying. Particularly with the Tea Party loonies and the evangelicals and the newly resurgent Republican party determined to make gay rights a campaign issue. I fear we may be in for an interesting time the next few years in the old Chinese curse,("May you live in interesting times!") sense.

Transward

[jemagirl (imported)]

Both sides have expressed determination to take it to the Supreme Court, and as was recently reported the current court is the most conservative in 60 years.

Transward

I just hope the Pro 8 side is as prepared for the SCOTU as they were for the 9th

[Losethem (imported)]

I think prop8 was overturned in Arkansas as well a couple months ago... but I don't remember exactly. :-/

It would be impossible for Proposition 8 to be overturned in Arkansas, since the proposition had nothing to do with Arkansas law. Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative in California, voted on by the citizens of California, and enforced by the state of California. It was a process that happened entirely within the state of California, so no state or federal court in Arkansas could have heard the case.

Cases related to California are heard by state and local courts in that state, and then make their way at a federal level starting with the court that made today's ruling, and if appealed it then goes to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals which roughly covers a geography including the western US states. From that court it could go to the US Supreme Court, probably in 2012 at the earliest.

I'm assuming you're probably talking about whatever version of anti-gay marriage law exists in Arkansas?