Analysis at Prop 8 Trial Tracker
(Here’s a taste of the opinion issued by Judge Walker -P13)
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.
That’s as good as than what the “birthers” are putting out there.
Quoting Roseanne Roseannadanna, “It’s always something” with regard to these lunatics.
Nothing gets by the “Family Research Council,” does it? And to think that we almost got away with it. Damn you, FRC, damn you!
See BTB’s analysis of the Family Reasearch Council’s analysis.
You have opened my eyes to things of which I was unfamiliar. The righties don’t have a leg to stand on here.
Good.
“..this ‘liberal San Francisco judge’ was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It’s a good thing for for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.”
This was a victory for gay conservatism.
Will the wingnuts now be calling Judge Walker an “activist” judge because of this ruling?
It’s ironic how a judge who practiced judicial activism and allowed Cuccinelli’s frivolous anti-health care lawsuit to proceed earlier this week is hailed by the righties, but when another judge makes a sound ruling based on solid Constitutional principles, he will be villified by the right as an “activist judge” because they don’t agree with the ruling.
You say potato, I say potatoe (or at least spell it that way, right Mr. Quayle?).
Judge Walker. Judge Vaughn Walker.
It’s the over 80 separate findings of fact that are now permanently part of the jurisprudence that seal it. Courts can reverse findings of law, but findings of fact are forever.
It remains to be seen whether the stay will be merely temporary. Judge Vaughn remains a very conservative judge, which is (ironically for some) why he ruled the way he did.
The judge did a nice, thorough job on this one. I have a feeling the Supreme Court will make the ultimate decision, but the facts are clearly on the side of allowing two people to marry, period.