BREAKING NEWS OUT OF CALIFORNIA...

[lagilman]

California Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

EtA: the full ruling: http://ow.ly/2l7Ze

It makes me sad that some people think their personal beliefs and fears are enough to justify unabashed and overt discrimination against their neighbors... but the courts have told them NO. And that is a victory for the day.

Comments

[seachanges.livejournal.com]

YAY!!!!

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Wahoo!

[chickwriter.livejournal.com]

SO.
MUCH.
WIN.

[rwglaub.livejournal.com]

Good. I was in favor of same-sex marriage even when I was a Republican way back when...

[peggin.livejournal.com]

AWESOME!!!

[eldestmuse.livejournal.com]

Will be interesting to see how the appeals process goes.

[lagilman]

It will go long and drawn out, but for the day we have a court that has said "bigotry is not justification to deprive others of their rights." And for that I say huzzah.

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

Something I found interesting in the early part of the decision:

"With the exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, Doc #39, the government defendants refused to take a position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and declined to defend Proposition 8."

Who is going to appeal? (Though the proponents of prop 8 were granted leave to argue it in court. Maybe that continues.)

[rosefox]

Christian right-wingers who joined the state in defending the suit.

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

"The appeal was filed by Protect Marriage, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8"

You called it. Though to be precise, they defended it instead of the state, who declined to defend.

[rosefox]

I think there were about five seconds of overlap, but yes, it's fantastic that the state has entirely washed its hands of the matter.

[threeoutside.livejournal.com]

Hurrays hurrays! And I love your avatar. *hurls confetti*

[cepetit.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

As a law geek, one of the things I found most interesting was Judge Walker's reliance on Barnette for the very point Madame Meerkat made. There were a lot of other cases he could have relied upon for the same point, many of them concerning core civil rights issues (even including the interracial marriage case, Loving v. Virginia). Instead, though, he chose a case concerning:
* ostracizing children in schools
* on the basis of a non-majority religious belief (Jehovah's Witness doctrine) that prevented them from the full-on flag-salute and pledge of allegiance
* during wartime...
* in the face of a decision that went the other way only three years previously (Gobitis, one of the Trinity of Shame from the wartime Court)

Gee, you don't think that Judge Walker might be saying that a religious viewpoint, whether majority or minority, is not an adequate justification for the state taking away a generally held right by holding up the converse case, do you?

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

It's still early in the game, but it is nice to see. I'm glad that Kagan's hearings are already concluded, because I can't imagine what would have happened if this ruling were passed down before them.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

Wahoo! Yay! Wahoo!