On the Prop 8 ruling
Yes, I've read the whole thing in a day. I know it's 138 pages, I have a tiny attention span, and I had other things I planned to get done, but they can wait, and this was important, damn it! OK, not in the sense of having a direct effect on me (or anyone else, until the stay and/or appeals are worked out), but I care about constitutional law and I've been in suspense!
So, I know that Judge Vaughn Walker was just doing his job and all that, and I don't mean to cast any aspersions on his objectivity or professionalism, but...
If he was looking to give the biggest, loveliest Christmas-came-early present of a ruling that he could possibly give to the gay community, this was it. Oh, the job was made easy for him. Olsen and Boies (our side's most famous lawyers) made a brilliant case with many of the best expert witnesses they could have called. They absolutely destroyed the defendants' arguments, which wasn't that hard for them either; the Prop 8 people had to do a ton of backpedaling away from the blatant lies they used during the campaign, and after dropping all their appeals to prejudice, they barely had any case left at all. After all, they dropped most of their witnesses after deposition, because most of their witnesses were actually hurting their case.
But still. Judge Walker could have made his ruling on the most conservative grounds possible. He could have moderated his statements to protect against the various accusations that he's one of those "activist judges" or that he's biased because he's gay himself (the media rumor mills sound sure of this; I hardly care whether or not he is). He could have avoided giving an opinion on any issues other than the minimum necessary to barely justify his ruling. He didn't bother.
His ruling touches on all kinds of political, legal, religious, social, and economic issues that same-sex couples face. He points out the irrationality and harm of stigma and gay/lesbian stereotypes, and how they were drawn upon by campaign materials. He mentions the fact that gay couples are already raising children who are better off when their parents are allowed to marry. He points out that fertility and religion have never been considered integral parts of American civil marriage, and that same-sex marriage would seem to continue the trend of marriage laws constantly being made more equitable with time. He completely rejects the bad science and unqualified experts behind Prop 8's defense. He doesn't give an inch when it comes to findings of fact.
He did just as well with the legal arguments. This case was based on the federal 14th Amendment, and there were two components to the challenge. One was based on the Due Process clause, which basically restricts the circumstances under which the government can impose on "life, liberty, and property". The other was based on the Equal Protection clause, which guarantees "the equal protection of the laws". Judge Walker ruled against Prop 8 based on three important determinations.
1) With regards to the Due Process claim, Judge Walker noted that marriage is a fundamental right, and that same-sex marriages are just like any other marriages.
2) With regards to the Equal Protection claim, Judge Walker stated that prejudice based on sexual orientation was both based on prejudice and ignorance, and part of sexism, and therefore sexual orientation is a "suspect classification". Much like race, nationality, and gender.
3) Then Judge Walker stated that there is no legitimate reason to deny same-sex marriage at all. He threw pretty much everything that the Prop 8 proponents claimed out the window, because it was all either based in prejudice, not legitimately related to government, or simply false.
This was basically the best that we could hope for. Not one, but three lines of reasoning which were as favorable to the gay community as possible, and if any one of them stands then same-sex marriage almost certainly remains protected by the federal constitution.
Now, I don't want to overstate the impact here. This only applies to California, and has not taken effect yet. If this ruling is appealed (which is likely), Judge Walker's conclusions regarding the law go out the window, and the trial begins again, with higher stakes. But it's not quite starting over, because only the legal aspects are reconsidered, and not the "findings of fact", which are heavily against Proposition 8. Furthermore, any appeal will be working with the same facts and same basic legal framework as in this trial, so winning spectacularly the first time suggests that an appeal would come down in our favor again.
I think I'd really like the issue to just be solved for California... But I'll admit I am kind of curious what SCOTUS will say if this case eventually gets heard by them. It's an exciting and scary prospect that would affect the whole country.
I'd like to leave off with a few quotes from Walker's conclusion.
On marriage:
Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, FF 52. Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold, 381 US at 486. Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
That may not sound like the most poetic thing ever, but coming from a federal judge it's actually a really astonishing thing. This is a degree of recognition that hasn't appeared in US federal legal proceedings before, and now it really has happened. Really. Made me a bit teary-eyed.
On domestic partnerships:
The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples.
I think this is a "duh" conclusion that for some reason escapes many people.
On families:
The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households.
A good statement after all the campaign materials that used the "Think of the children" scare tactic.
On equality and discrimination:
Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.
This, I feel, is the simple truth behind the entire case.
So this is the end of this trial. I'll keep following it through any appeals and other incidents, of course. Although it's quite the amazing decision, I'm left wondering, a bit, why I followed it so closely. I read (or at least scanned) most of the transcripts. I looked through a lot of the important evidence considered, and watched the odd legal twists and turns that happened before and after the "meat" of the trial.
And I've decided that it's just because it really is that important. If/when there is a Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage, it may well be the most important single civil rights case in my adult life, and this trial may become that case (I'm still a young-un, only 14 during Lawrence). Watching people grow and mature, whether as individuals, as a community, as a species, or in this case as a nation... that's awe-inspiring. It's a deeply necessary process. And as incredibly sad and humbling as it can be to realize what stupid and evil things human beings have done, it does help one become hopeful and optimistic to see those mistakes finally corrected.
This trial has had a lot of drama and a lot of passion and a lot of power and, most of all, it has been deeply thought-provoking for me, as a bisexual man, as an American citizen, and as a human being. And I'm sure that there will be much more to come, whether in the appeal of this case or in the next marriage case to come along. So here's to prejudice! May it die an ignoble death wherever it skulks, choking on the ashes of ignorance.
So, I know that Judge Vaughn Walker was just doing his job and all that, and I don't mean to cast any aspersions on his objectivity or professionalism, but...
If he was looking to give the biggest, loveliest Christmas-came-early present of a ruling that he could possibly give to the gay community, this was it. Oh, the job was made easy for him. Olsen and Boies (our side's most famous lawyers) made a brilliant case with many of the best expert witnesses they could have called. They absolutely destroyed the defendants' arguments, which wasn't that hard for them either; the Prop 8 people had to do a ton of backpedaling away from the blatant lies they used during the campaign, and after dropping all their appeals to prejudice, they barely had any case left at all. After all, they dropped most of their witnesses after deposition, because most of their witnesses were actually hurting their case.
But still. Judge Walker could have made his ruling on the most conservative grounds possible. He could have moderated his statements to protect against the various accusations that he's one of those "activist judges" or that he's biased because he's gay himself (the media rumor mills sound sure of this; I hardly care whether or not he is). He could have avoided giving an opinion on any issues other than the minimum necessary to barely justify his ruling. He didn't bother.
His ruling touches on all kinds of political, legal, religious, social, and economic issues that same-sex couples face. He points out the irrationality and harm of stigma and gay/lesbian stereotypes, and how they were drawn upon by campaign materials. He mentions the fact that gay couples are already raising children who are better off when their parents are allowed to marry. He points out that fertility and religion have never been considered integral parts of American civil marriage, and that same-sex marriage would seem to continue the trend of marriage laws constantly being made more equitable with time. He completely rejects the bad science and unqualified experts behind Prop 8's defense. He doesn't give an inch when it comes to findings of fact.
He did just as well with the legal arguments. This case was based on the federal 14th Amendment, and there were two components to the challenge. One was based on the Due Process clause, which basically restricts the circumstances under which the government can impose on "life, liberty, and property". The other was based on the Equal Protection clause, which guarantees "the equal protection of the laws". Judge Walker ruled against Prop 8 based on three important determinations.
1) With regards to the Due Process claim, Judge Walker noted that marriage is a fundamental right, and that same-sex marriages are just like any other marriages.
2) With regards to the Equal Protection claim, Judge Walker stated that prejudice based on sexual orientation was both based on prejudice and ignorance, and part of sexism, and therefore sexual orientation is a "suspect classification". Much like race, nationality, and gender.
3) Then Judge Walker stated that there is no legitimate reason to deny same-sex marriage at all. He threw pretty much everything that the Prop 8 proponents claimed out the window, because it was all either based in prejudice, not legitimately related to government, or simply false.
This was basically the best that we could hope for. Not one, but three lines of reasoning which were as favorable to the gay community as possible, and if any one of them stands then same-sex marriage almost certainly remains protected by the federal constitution.
Now, I don't want to overstate the impact here. This only applies to California, and has not taken effect yet. If this ruling is appealed (which is likely), Judge Walker's conclusions regarding the law go out the window, and the trial begins again, with higher stakes. But it's not quite starting over, because only the legal aspects are reconsidered, and not the "findings of fact", which are heavily against Proposition 8. Furthermore, any appeal will be working with the same facts and same basic legal framework as in this trial, so winning spectacularly the first time suggests that an appeal would come down in our favor again.
I think I'd really like the issue to just be solved for California... But I'll admit I am kind of curious what SCOTUS will say if this case eventually gets heard by them. It's an exciting and scary prospect that would affect the whole country.
I'd like to leave off with a few quotes from Walker's conclusion.
On marriage:
Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, FF 52. Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold, 381 US at 486. Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
That may not sound like the most poetic thing ever, but coming from a federal judge it's actually a really astonishing thing. This is a degree of recognition that hasn't appeared in US federal legal proceedings before, and now it really has happened. Really. Made me a bit teary-eyed.
On domestic partnerships:
The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples.
I think this is a "duh" conclusion that for some reason escapes many people.
On families:
The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households.
A good statement after all the campaign materials that used the "Think of the children" scare tactic.
On equality and discrimination:
Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.
This, I feel, is the simple truth behind the entire case.
So this is the end of this trial. I'll keep following it through any appeals and other incidents, of course. Although it's quite the amazing decision, I'm left wondering, a bit, why I followed it so closely. I read (or at least scanned) most of the transcripts. I looked through a lot of the important evidence considered, and watched the odd legal twists and turns that happened before and after the "meat" of the trial.
And I've decided that it's just because it really is that important. If/when there is a Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage, it may well be the most important single civil rights case in my adult life, and this trial may become that case (I'm still a young-un, only 14 during Lawrence). Watching people grow and mature, whether as individuals, as a community, as a species, or in this case as a nation... that's awe-inspiring. It's a deeply necessary process. And as incredibly sad and humbling as it can be to realize what stupid and evil things human beings have done, it does help one become hopeful and optimistic to see those mistakes finally corrected.
This trial has had a lot of drama and a lot of passion and a lot of power and, most of all, it has been deeply thought-provoking for me, as a bisexual man, as an American citizen, and as a human being. And I'm sure that there will be much more to come, whether in the appeal of this case or in the next marriage case to come along. So here's to prejudice! May it die an ignoble death wherever it skulks, choking on the ashes of ignorance.