California's gay marriage ban struck down as unconstitutional

[Guynemer]

Well, he does look fabulous in his robe. He's no Rehnquist-at-Clinton's-impeachment (aka the gayest moment in the history of American jurisprudence), but still.

[Solomwi]

Policy-wise:

Legally, I haven't finished reading the opinion but so far it looks like Walker crafted the decision VERY carefully with the high court in mind. He even cites to Scalia's Lawrence v. Texas dissent, which I thought was a nice touch. I'm not a fan of substantive due process, but as a trial judge, he has to work within the framework he's given. From what I've seen, he did that fairly well. Of course, both his due process and equal protection opinions ultimately rest on finding no legitimate state interest behind Prop 8. His account of the trial testimony is interesting on that score, but without reading the trial transcript (which I'm not going to do), I don't know if it will hold up in the higher courts. That's a statement of genuine uncertainty either way, by the way, not a half-assed prediction of reversal.

Oh, and the first person to whine about the court overthrowing/disregarding/whatever the will/voice/whatever of the people gets nine bullets to the ****ing head.

[Wiglaf]

Oh, and the first person to whine about the court overthrowing/disregarding/whatever the will/voice/whatever of the people gets nine bullets to the ****ing head.

Why?

And, though the gay thread starter cannot be expected to know anything not contained in the yellow pages, this decision is meaningless not just because it comes from the California judiciary but also because it comes from a district court. The crap I just took has more wait than this ruling.

[Boris Godunov]

I like this part a great deal:

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. The "ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally-mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

[Solomwi]

Why?

And, though the gay thread starter cannot be expected to know anything not contained in the yellow pages, this decision is meaningless not just because it comes from the California judiciary but also because it comes from a district court. The crap I just took has more wait than this ruling.

For being too stupid to continue ****ing living. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit what the "will of the people" can do.

[Dinner]

Take that out of state Mormon church. Everyone knew it would be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just like segregation did) which might explain why Republicans are now campaigning to get rid of the 14th.

[Dinner]

Take that out of state Mormon church. Everyone knew it would be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just like segregation did) which might explain why Republicans are now campaigning to get rid of the 14th.

[DaShi]

Take that out of state Mormon church. Everyone knew it would be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just like segregation did) which might explain why Republicans are now campaigning to get rid of the 14th.

[Asher]

Take that non-SAN DIEGO Mormon church. Everyone knew it would be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (just like segregation did) which might explain why SAN DIEGO Republicans are now campaigning to get rid of the 14th.

[DaShi]

Oh, it's about San Diego. Nevermind then.

[Wiglaf]

For being too stupid to continue ****ing living. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit what the "will of the people" can do.

You are an idiot and should be shot in the penis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This.

Oh, and Solomwi is correct that the trial judge was very meticulous in this decision. As a result, it was the best possible decision for the plaintiffs.

[Sharpe]

I'm curious as to why a gay judge wasn't forced to recuse himself from this case on grounds of vested interest. There are also signs that the judge had made up his mind before the trial even started - granted the defense presented a weak case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the judge was a Catholic should he also have been forced to recuse himself on the grounds of vested interest?

[Boris Godunov]

Or a straight judge, for that matter, since a core part of the defendant's arguments was that gay marriage presented a threat to heterosexual marriage.

Do black judges have to recuse themselves from cases where one of the parties is black? Or do we usually give the benefit of the doubt to judges that they will exercise their duties without prejudice?

There are also signs that the judge had made up his mind before the trial even started

Such as?