Proposition 8 struck down!

Judge Walker writes:

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.

6 thoughts on “Proposition 8 struck down!

  1. It’s great good news.
    I don’t mind really that you beat me to it by 7 minutes; I just trashed the post and put up the pics!

  2. From a women’s rights perspective, the decision has an awesome pull quote which may yet be cited in other contexts in the future. As this is not exactly the point of the decision other commentators are not focusing on it, but you may want to here:

    (Sorry, I don’t know how to do quotes on here)

    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.

    The court is casually asserting that CA has “eliminated all legally mandated gender roles” apart from within marriage. This isn’t a holding of the opinion, because it’s not the direct point, but it’s a very strong statement, and depending on where this case goes could be used in the future against any differential state treatment in CA based on gender.

  3. Adding to what J-Bro posted:

    “The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
    order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”

Comments are closed.