Janet Miles, CAP-OM (janetmiles) wrote,
Janet Miles, CAP-OM

California Proposition 8 overturned on both due process and equal protection

It's already all over my friendslist, but on the off chance that you don't read any of the people I read, and that no one else on your friendslist has posted it, Vaughn R. Walker, US District Chief Judge, US District Court for the Northern District of California, has ruled that California Proposition 8, which amended the California State Constitution to prescribe marriage as being between one man and one woman, violates the US Constitution, Article 14, under both the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses.


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 and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

Several times while I was reading, I stopped to (mentally) applaud. One of them, which I can't find now, was essentially, "Majority be damned; basic human rights are not subject to a popular vote. Deal." Only in much more legalistic language.

Go read it.


ETA: Here's the ruling as a searchable PDF. http://extras.mercurynews.com/news/prop8ruling.pdf

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.