defending marriage

UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Prop 8 Overturned In Landmark Federal Ruling

In the long-awaited ruling Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker handed down a doozy of a ruling: The voter-approved law known as Prop 8, which stripped California’s same-sex couples of the right to marry, is unconstitutional, violating both due process and equal protection clauses. And how is your day going?

TAKEAWAY: Walker’s ruling is, plainly, a vicious assault on the very premise that marriage discrimination is legal, and that voters can decide such a matter. He does not hold back on painting, in very clear language, how each of the defendant’s arguments about why Prop 8 should stand are a farce. This is a bold, unequivocal win. It’s also crucial to note how many aspects of banning same-sex marriage Walker addressed, which will help the case as it’s appealed; moving forward judges must look at Walker’s ruling as a basis for their own judgments.

CAN CALIFORNIA GAYS MARRY … STARTING RIGHT NOW? No. According to the ruling Prop 8 is dead immediately. As if it didn’t exist. As in: No government office or county clerk can withhold marriage licenses from same-sex couples, because the language “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” is erased. Walker’s ruling means the California State Supreme Court’s 2008 decision legalizing same-sex marriage stands. However: It’s unclear whether Walker is granting or denying the defense’s request to stay the decision until appeals are exhausted, and there will be no action until Walker makes a decision on the motion.

CAN ALL GAYS GET MARRIED? Haha, no. This thing is headed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and from there the Supreme Court. Only a ruling there could knock down every state law and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

ANY WORD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? Barack Obama is celebrating his 49th birthday today, in case you thought he was too busy for you beforehand. But the White House did issue this statement: “The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

Some main points from the ruling:

• “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.”

• “Domestic partnerships do not satisfy California’s obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry.”

• “The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF
69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents.”

• “PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON. Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny. Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’”

• “Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.”

• “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.”

• “PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS. Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. One example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them. But marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed. See Background to Proposition 8 above.”

And my personal favorite part of the ruling (which I’ve had five seconds to skim):

• “A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION. 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.
FF 78-80. 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. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433
(1984) (‘[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.’).”

The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians.


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.


And if you even care, here’s the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown: “Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial. With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

Full ruling:

(Post regularly updated)

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #afer #americanfoundationforequalrights stories and more


  • Rick Brannon

    With liberty and justice for ALL.

  • Republican

    Let freedom ring!

  • ChiGuy76

    This is great news!

    Now let the whining commence from the ever so persecuted NOM.

  • Jaroslaw

    I just read this on a blog – I haven’t ever seen it here.

    Divorce is legal and NO CHURCH including the Catholic Church has ever been FORCED to marry people previously divorce.

    And HURRAY. Now to search for a husband…. :)

  • Steveo


  • L.

    And those are not “special gay” rights – those are EQUAL rights.

  • Mark

    INCREDIBLE! I’m overseas right now but wish I was home to celebrate – I will though where I am. Thank you Judge Walker!

  • Andrew




  • missanthrope

    “And those are not “special gay” rights – those are EQUAL rights.”

    Not for people who are in relationship other than married. In fact in many state’s it’s still illegal to co-habitate.

  • Lance Rockland

    Maggie Gallagher just had a heart attack and DIED!

    DING DONG! The Wicked Witch is dead.

  • Bobby

    All I could do after hearing the news was cry. I, a gay male from California, have the right to get married.

  • L.

    @missanthrope: This is about California (for the time being.) Every party needs its pooper, I guess.

  • Devon

    Homophobe status:

    [_] Not told
    [_] Told
    [X] Fucking told

  • Erika Lorshbough

    What a victory! More to come. I expect good things in the Ninth, of course.

    (You may want to change Judge Walker’s desigantion in the first sentence as some may find it misleading. He is in fact the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.)


  • DX

    Yes, well my unabashed joy is somewhat tempered by the knowledge that as things stand, the lunatic formerly known as John Roberts will be the deciding vote in the most partisan Supreme Court in US history.

  • Jeremy

    This news brings tears to my eye. Thank you, Ted Olson and David Boies for your incredible hard work.

    PS: Alright, who keeps thumbing down all of comments that only express the rightful happiness over this victory? Come out, you little rat!

  • Bavarian Erin

    So incredibly for happy for California.

  • Juanita de Talmas

    It will be quite interesting to see the twisted logic used by
    Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito when they rule in the appeal that is sure to come before them.

  • Mathew

    I remember having recurring nightmares this morning that Prop 8 would be upheld, and, because of this, my anxiety levels skyrocketed when I woke up. I honestly didn’t know what was going to happen, so, as of now, I can say that I am pleasantly surprised! 2010 is turning out to be a great year, overall. :)

  • Erik


  • Lance Rockland

    The Mormons spent $40 MILLION to get Prop.8 passed. Happy now, losers? BWAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How much will you scumbags spend to get it on the ballot again? $100 MILLION?

  • Janet

    Well it’s about time someone said what most of us have been thinking!!!

  • axos

    Congratulations, California and the world! (Because we’re all happy for you, and because it’s bound to have an impact.) What a relief, common sense prevailed.

  • Xtian99

    OMG I nearly cried

    wait- now I am crying

    this rocks- so maybe people do indeed see throug the lies and “inchoate” bull$#^* that others spin about us to see we are just like everyone else…

    I don’t even WANT to get married …but I am so happy about this!

  • Queer Supremacist

    Justice prevails. Long live Judicial Activism, the only thing standing between liberty and tyranny.

    Suck it, goyim!

  • gullible's travels

    Hooray.. now lets run it up to the Feds so we can catch up with Spain, Argentina, and all those civilized countries. Thank you Judge Walker

  • Geoff M

    Finally a measure of hope….now if we don’t muck it up during the next phase mounted by NOM and FOF.

  • Queer Supremacist

    Judge Walker is an American hero. He belongs on the Supreme Court.

  • Baxter

    @DX: Actually, I think Roberts, Alito, and obviously Kennedy are all possible swing votes here. I’m pretty sure that only Scalia and Thomas truly hate the gays.

  • Dave Johnson

    I have a question: If Prop 8 supporters bring this to appeal to the US supreme court, wouldn’t Walker’s decision being upheld there strike down ALL States anti-same-sex-marriage laws? Wouldn’t they be smarter to just let this one go without forcing the issue?



    Poor Dear, she tends to binge on burritos when she gets upset….. :-p

  • BenR

    I’m ecstatic about this… and as a soon-to-be law student, it reminds me why the profession of law remains so important.

    However, I’m also aware of that old idiom, “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.”

    I’m talkin’ to you, Scalia!

  • Sam

    @Lance Rockland: There is no situation where they’d have to pass Prop 8 again. Either SCOTUS will rule in unconstitutional, meaning it’s permanently blocked, or they’ll overrule Walker, meaning that Prop 8 will still be in effect as if this ruling never happened.

  • James UK

    I’ve just read the full decision on the NY Times website. It’s a fantastic decision.
    It guts the anti-gay marriage arguments and finds that they are irrational and based on prejudice.
    It demolishes the credibility of the Prop 8 supporters experts. Blankenhorn was comprehensively trashed. I wouldn’t want to be him in front of a tenure committee.
    It established that strict scrutiny applies to sexual orientation classifications, but that Prop 8 couldn’t even pass muster on the highly deferential rational basis test.
    The words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the recent Supreme Court case of Christian Legal Society v Martinez indeed are a time bomb for the religious right and were happily and I suspect gleefully quoted in the judgement.
    It also establishes that sexual orientation is largely immutable. Unlike hate, which has always been a learned behaviour.
    Bravo to Boies and Olson and their firms and to the plaintiffs, Perry, Steir, Katami and Zarillo.
    And bravo to AFER.
    Oh and Queerty, this is the perfect opportunity for you to find something nice to say about Dustin Lance Black.

  • Dawson

    This will make it to the USSC is my prediction. Once it is there, even if it doesn’t pass (which only time will tell), it will still force the highest court in the land to come out about their true feelings towards gay marriage.

    For now though, I’m going to celebrate this as the day a court in this country told me I am equal and I have the right to love and marry who I chose. That is something I have been told the opposite of for 31 years, and I wasn’t sure I’d be considered an equal citizen at any point in my life time.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @Dave Johnson: The Ku Klux Kristian Klan couldn’t bring in one credible witness for this case, and some of the ones they had chickened out of testifying. What makes you think credible ones will start popping up out of thin air?

  • L.

    Like many here, a corner of my brain worries about what’s going to happen next, and whether SCOTUS will do anything to quash our joy (@Sam: They could also weasel out and decline to hear the case)…

    …but I’ll worry later and just for one day will be happy and celebrate.

  • Dave Johnson

    @Queer Supremacist: That’s what I’m saying. Why would the pro prop-8 side risk another trouncing in appeal, if the stakes were automatically having every states’ same sex marriage ban struck down as unconstitutional? I would think they’d just cut their losses here, unless I’m missing something.

  • vaz

    I hope it’s goes to the USS and it’s struck down. The people said yes. Democracy prevailed.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @Dave Johnson: Cutting their losses and admitting defeat would be the rational thing for them to do.

    But keep in mind that these are not rational people we are dealing with. I don’t even consider them people, but lower than insects.

  • Devon


    Oh good lord…Not this again. What “da ppl” think about the rights of any minority is irrelevant. America is a republic, not a democracy.

    You jackass.

  • Lanjier

    Please, please, please, everyone take the time to read the full opinion here. I know that it is tedious, but like a golden fairy that dispels the mists, the court’s opinion may heal any lingering doubts that you may have about yourself.

    Science — a self-esteem read. Do it. You won’t be sorry. Savor every minute of it. Then go over to the and the brick testament, and see that all of the supposed “moral beliefs” were cherry-picking from the deeply flawed bible. You won’t be sorry.

    Juice up that [email protected]!!

  • L.

    @vaz: Actually, the People said ‘no’. Regrettably. Democracy also said ‘yes’ to every single no-marriage-for-gays initiative ever put on the ballot, if I remember correctly. But, just like in the ’60s, democracy in Dixie would probably have said ‘no’ to integration, sometimes the courts overturn the people’s decree. Let’s hope SCOTUS declines to hear, or upholds, if they do hear.


    Mom, I am sorry you told me I never should take joy in the misery of others but, this is just too juicy not savor………..If you want to listen to unmitigated mass hysteria and uncontroled maniacal head exploding rage turn the radios dial to the nearest rightwing lunatic talk show………The way the frightwing lunatic callers are crying you would have thought martial law was just declared and the trucks are backing up their driveways to take them all to internment camps……..

    I know this is far from the end of this debacle. but it feels so damm nice to relish this so very sweet day ……..

  • Forgiveness_Man

    Knew this would be here. Can’t say I am surprised. Judges in this country love to practice judicial activism. Don’t we feel safe knowing a single judge can basically overturn anything the people decide? Agree with the decision or not, it’s scary territory, and I frankly do not like unchecked power like this.

    Of course, gay marriage supporters will take joy in this. Those of us who see the bigger picture, well, we’ll just have more proof. Besides, declaring something unconstitutional anymore, doesn’t really mean anything since America hasn’t given a damn about the constitution in a long time.

    But I’ll leave ya’ll to your partying.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @L.: What we need is less democracy, more freedom. Democracy is just mob rule.

    @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: The way the frightwing lunatic callers are crying you would have thought martial law was just declared and the trucks are backing up their driveways to take them all to internment camps……..

    If only…

  • Devon

    Freerepublic is in the middle of a shit hurricane over this.

    “Why even bother vote anymore?

    The Constitution only covers liberal minority groups anymore. :(:(:(”

    “I say we give California back to Mexico. All the amoral people and communist left-wing judges can move there as well. I wonder when the weirdos in California will put a proposition on the ballet inter-species marriage. California used to be a great state with proud people, now it just an embarrassment.”

    “Why wouldn’t this judge recuse themselves?????”

    Right-winger tears. Sweeter than the sweetest wine.

  • L.

    @Queer Supremacist: Clichéd, but still true that democracy is still the best of the worse solutions. My thought is, we need democracy. *And* education. A polity raised on reality shows and fed only soundbites cannot vote with any possibility of enlightened choice. (And in no way is this a snipe at the “uneducated” – we’re willfully kept so by higher powers who have no interest in having a wise electorate.)

    @Forgiveness_Man: “But I’ll leave ya’ll to your partying.”

    You do that.

    It is a staple of American political commentary that whichever side loses in higher courts laments about “judicial activism”.

  • L.

    @Devon: “When California will put a proposition on the ballet inter-species marriage.”

    Dear Freeper: you may not have heard, but “ballet” is supposed to be very, very gay.

  • Bobert

    Clay Aiken, Adam Lambert and Davey wavey scandals make more comments thn this.


  • L.

    @Bobert: Don’t be silly, now. I’m no fan by any measure of Davey et al., but I don’t think any of them generates 50+ comments in about three hours – on a day when Queerty has tech problems, no less.

  • Forgiveness_Man

    @L.: Just like it a staple that those on the winning side of Judicial Activism are willfully blind to it!

    Of course, I wasn’t on this case so I am not on a side. I know it is a temporary victory that in the grand scheme of things only means indicative things. Yes, it does clearly fall into Judicial Activism and I think people should be worried about the future when they won’t always be on the winning side of things. But I am sure people will enjoy the illusion of victory for now. They always do.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @L.: This country is not a democracy, it is a representative Republic. The citizens vote on whom to represent them in office. They should not get to vote on laws. California’s proposition system is exhibit A as to why direct democracy does not work.

    @Bobert: Plus there’s no set-up for Israel-bashing, race hustling, sexual objectification, or anti-Dan Choi astroturfing. When I see those threads I feel like changing my handle from “Queer Supremacist” to “Virulent Homophobe”. This actually matters in the long run, and thus far there are only 50 comments.

  • jeremydante

    beyond thrilled for this news. thanks for posting this as well, best write up i’ve seen on this story.

  • L.

    @Forgiveness_Man: Well, yes. Only winning and losing sides change seats sometimes, which means (as I was implying) that *everyone* at some point or other laments said activism.

    @Queer Supremacist: C’mon, you don’t actually believe that most elected official feel beholden to the electorate, as opposed to their campaign contributors, do you? (Plus, where did the representative Republic gave us equal rights, outside maybe Massachusetts?) And I would maintain that direct democracy could work very well, provided citizens were actually informed, not smothered in non-news about non-events. Alternatively, representative could of course work as well, provided the corporate / special interests money trough was shut off, and elected representatives actually felt bound to the people voting.

  • bluenosedive

    Woooo!! Awesome! ^_^

  • gullible's travels

    @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: thank you for posting this pic… I’m having a real belly-laugh over it!

  • gullible's travels

    @vaz: Maggie is that you?

  • at-any-cost?

    No. 25 · Queer Supremacist “Justice prevails. Long live Judicial Activism, the only thing standing between liberty and tyranny.”

    How pathetic. Disgraceful statement. And LMAO – completely undermines “the decision”. WHAT? It couldn’t stand on it’s own legally? You needed “judicial activism”? Or perhaps you have no clue what that even means. Yeah we get it – as long as it goes “your way” any tactic is fine. The Obama way.

  • Dawson

    @vaz: Democracy never prevails if the will of the majority is used to squash the rights of the minority. That is not Democracy.

  • Erika Lorshbough

    @DX: If it makes you feel any better at all, the center justice is still Kennedy, and co-counsel Ted Olson is Kennedy’s BFF… a BIG part of why many in the legal community agreed that this suit has a chance despite the conservative bent of this Court!




    They will spend w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r it takes. Money is no object for them.


    @gullible’s travels: TYVM………

    While I took a humerous poke her, Maggot Gallagher is really nothing more than a vicious hatefull crunt in a charade of a marriage herself who spends every waking moment working with her minions filing legal motions, touring the country on their hate tour 2010 and encouagring others to rally to the hatefull cause to deny us the exact same rights they enjoy as citizens of the United States :(……….

    I take great satisfaction that her and her ill ilk are mad upset tonight………

  • ChrisM



    I’ve always heard that what happens in California today will be happening in the rest of the country in a few years. I certainly hope that is true in this case! Way to go Cali!

  • Bill Perdue

    A huge victory that puts the ravings of those who supported Prop 8 and who oppose same sex marraige where they belong – in the garbage dump of history.

    That includes President ‘gawd’s in the mix’.

  • Steve

    This decision pretty much shortened the road ahead of us. With this decision, that refusing gay couples to marry has no rational basis and does not have the intent of protecting anything, this country will have to recognize just that: that refusing gays anything is not based on rationality. When, not if, this goes to SCOTUS, they’ll almost be forced to accept Walker’s decision, as several other rulings have found these types of things unconstitutional. Failure to uphold these rulings will instantly cast a personal prejudice on the Justices (although, we’ve already been given, by Ginsburg, a good hope that the Court will uphold the unconstitutional rulings.).

    While we’ll certainly be left with fallout, I think we have our A-Bomb.

  • whatever

    @Baxter: Kennedy is the only swing vote. Roberts and Alito are troglodytes of the lowest order when it comes to this and most everything else.

  • concernedcitizen

    Today Judge Walker struck a mighty formidable blow for liberty. Today the rights of americans has once again taken a step toward equality for all. Equality shall not be abridged or serve the caprices of a few or subject to the bias of the multitude at the expense of a minority…
    Today, is a great day, the sun is once again peaking over the horizon and within it’s glorious hue, bigotry and intolerance scramble like rodents from the intensely lurid sight!
    Justice and Equality for all people!

  • richardporter

    They ram-rodded this Pecker down the throats of Republicans.
    The Dems have once again Topped the Republican Bottoms.
    I say it’s time for a fisting!

  • Republican


    There is the slight possibility that Roberts will come over to our side because he’s the Chief Justice and might want to be the author of a historic decision of “his” Court in an area where there is little doubt which direction things are heading. (I think this had a lot to do with Chief Justice George of the California Supreme Court coming to our side.). Also, Roberts reaches conservative results, but he does not subscribe to originalism like Thomas and Scalia do, so he does have a little more wiggle room if he wants to have “his” Court reach such a result. Not counting on it, but the possibility is certainly there. Chief Justices sometimes surprise us.

  • M

    It’s about time! I’ll copy and paste what I said on my blog.

    Why are all the conservative, homophobic republicans bitching about the fact that their ‘vote doesn’t matter’ due to Prop 8 being overturned? Yes, we live in a democracy, but when things are as terribly unconstitutional and unfair as Prop 8 was, a decision has to be made by a higher power; i.e., the Federal Court. Now that a decision was made, the supporters of Prop 8 are getting all butthurt because it was made clear that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. SUCK IT UP, BIGOTS, AND FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT ACTUALLY AFFECT YOUR DAILY LIVES, because how the fuck does a stranger getting married to the love of their life affect you?

  • missanthrope

    “@missanthrope: This is about California (for the time being.) Every party needs its pooper, I guess.”

    I’d rather see marriage abolished, if not decoupled from state-granted privileges.

    But I don’t think that merely saying that there’s still a lot of work to be done for the rights of everyone is being a party pooper.

  • Sheldon

    This is awesome.
    If it goes to SCOTUS and the judge’s ruling is upheld, if I’m not mistaken, that would effectively end marriage discrimination in each and every state.
    If that happens, I can’t WAIT to see Maggot Gallagher’s and Brian Brown’s reaction to that!

  • Hudson

    Sitting here at work in Vancouver, I just heard about this on the radio and I’m all misty eyed. I’m so happy for you all. Congratulations :-)

  • D Smith

    omg its pride month in august!

    happy dance!

  • Moose

    @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: No playswell, Maggie is a person who married a non-white terrorist, and would rather have the public focus on the fa**ot* than draw attention to *her* abominable “marriage”.

    If only Raman Srivastav lived in Arizona …

    Whatever the case, screw that un-American race traitor: It’s time to celebrate.

  • concernedcitizen

    @D Smith: I think your misinformed the president declared Pride Month (despite Republican opposition) in June also as far as I know it’s always June.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @at-any-cost?: Are you fucking kidding me?

    The whole point of having a judiciary is to overturn bad law. “Judicial activism” is just a synonym for “Waaaah! The ruling didn’t go my way.”

    And don’t you dare compare me to Obama, or any Democrat, for that matter. I think I probably hate Obama more than you do.

    @L.: Basically if humans weren’t imperfect. But then we wouldn’t even need laws or governments.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @richardporter: It’s time for a history check. Vaughn Walker was nominated by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by George H.W. Bush. Democrats can not claim any victory here.

    Don’t believe me? Read this:

    And to think Nancy Pelosi tried to block his nomination!

  • David Ehrenstein

    Awesome doesn’t begin to describe it. I’ve spent the better part of the day reading the ruling carefully. It’s built like the proverbial Brick Shit House!

    80 separate “Findings of fact.” That means what Walker states her is beyond opinion. It is PROVEN.

    He very neatly gutted the Prop 8 supporters by showign their two meager witnesses had nothig but unsubstantiated opinion on their side. By contrast we had people like Georgle Chauncey — a noted sociologist whose books and papers have been PEER REVIEWED. IMO, what he says isn’t “opinion” at all but solid information backed up with eividence ( charts, information, et. al.)

    In order to overturn a ruling like this opponents will have dismantle each one of the 80 “Findings of Fact”

    That’s comparable to dismantling the Pyramids in order to put up something “better.”

    High time we got used to winning.

  • whatever

    @Republican: Roberts strikes me as the type who gets his inspiration from Roger Taney than Earl Warren. I am not so optimistic he wants to be on the “right” side of history.

  • The Bony Man

    I celebrate this victory on the road to change and enlightenment. This is proof that the wrongs of the past are dying, making way for the justice of the future.

  • Jaroslaw

    I listened to a right wing wacko talk show hose (I mean host) just to hear what he said (Mark Levin) and he had this guest on Ed Whelan from Ethics & Public Policy.

    They said “it was a bad day for the Constitution”. But never really said how that was. They also, naturally,had the complete opposite view about witnesses and evidence although they are in a Christian fundamentalist dreamworld about that.

    No mention that the sky hasn’t fallen in Massachussetts even though they’ve had SSM for several years now; or why a male/female household is the preferred parenting plan, except to say that those are “American Values” and “common sense.”

    If THAT is the best they can do, we will undoubtedly win at SCOTUS.

  • Bill Perdue

    @Queer Supremacist: “When I see those threads I feel like changing my handle from “Queer Supremacist” to “Virulent Homophobe”.

    Finally, some honesty.

  • Queer Supremacist

    @Ernst Rohm: Isn’t there a synagogue you should be spray-painting swastikas on?

  • Justin

    When it hits the Supreme Court…

    Yes on 8: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts
    No on 8: Breyer, GInsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan

    I find it interesting that after all is said and done, the question of gay marriage will be determined by one person in the whole country: Anthony Kennedy.

  • Jon

    Epic win. ;)

  • Amy

    I am so glad to hear this news!

  • Ken S

    Lewis Black, during a stand-up show in Canada, once said- referring to Arnold’s election as governor of CA, actually, as a symptom of mass mental illness in America- (and I’m going to have to paraphrase) ‘a lot of Americans buy their drugs from Canada. Well there’s something you can do to help: up the dosage. Sedate us, we’ll go quietly.’ I laughed uproariously because as an outside observer, for the last 12 years or so America-as-a-political-entity has looked pretty fuckin’ schizophrenic and intent on self-harm. I’ve been scared to death to cross the border (even though there are sights in the U.S. I’d like to see someday) for fear of the crazy rubbing off… or being chased all the way home by gun-toting hillbillies playing the Benny Hill song on a banjo.

    But today sounds like there’s some small sign of improvement. If it keeps up, maybe we can *start* to think about scaling back on your meds.

    Now swallow today’s dose and let me check under your tongue.

  • Pip

    Dear Maggie Galagher,
    EAT THIS YOU VILE COW!!! Wooooh hooooh!!! HOLLLAAAHHHH!!!! Go California!!!

  • jeffree

    I hope everyone will take the time to read Walker’s full decision. It’s 130+ pages and took me a few hours because I had to look up some legal words in the dictionary, but it seems airtight from the perspective of a non-lawyer. The lfindings were clear, crisp, and well-documented.

    I do check out the fundie blogs, and they are steaming.mad. I don’t understand how they didn’t see this coming because the Prop 8 supporters really did a horrible.job of supporting their own case.

    Mom called to ask if she should start planning for the wedding :-) I was like, no, not just yet! We have some immig.ration issues to settle first !

  • L.

    @L.: So we’re nearing 100 comments. The only story that generated more recently is the one about Dan Choi’s earning cash from activism – and that’s not surprising since it appeared to be a highly divisive topic. On a (near-)unargued issue, I’d say 100 is a fine score.

  • Lance Rockland

    I am thrilled beyond words at this decision, but urge caution to my queer brothers and sisters.

    Our enemies will not give up without a fight. They are well-funded and will SAY and DO anything to keep us from winning equal rights.


  • U Ser

    @vaz: The great flaw in your argument is that “democracy” is not a holy grail, nor especially are “the people” sacrosanct. The “people” can be a mob as well as it can be an informed electorate. An ignorant bunch of stupid Arschlocs voting as a majority to “speak” only means they are stupid and also vote stupidly; what they thus “say” may well not be worth “hearing.”

  • U Ser

    @Queer Supremacist:
    Nancy’s been the village idiot for a long time, though!

  • whatever

    @Queer Supremacist: He was confirmed by the Senate, you idiot.

  • whatever

    @U Ser: Haha, the powerful and productive speaker is a village idiot. Whatever you say, nelly.

  • declanto

    Vaughn Walker is a true American hero.

  • declanto

    @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: LMFAO, Hopefully she’ll choke to death with rage.

  • Mountainword

    West Virginia’s LGBT community is standing with you, California! Great news!

    Please send us some good vibes as we will be facing down NOM supporters in our state capital(Charleston, WV) on August 11!

  • Queer Supremacist

    @whatever: From Wikipedia, since you didn’t bother to click the link:

    “Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker’s sexual orientation.[5]”

    I assume you knew that such a confirmation has to pass the house first.

    Do you work for Nancy Pelossolini or something?

  • jianmei

    From Wikipedia, since you didn’t bother to click the link:

    “Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker’s sexual orientation.[5]”

    I assume you knew that such a confirmation has to pass the house first.

    Do you work for Nancy Pelossolini or something?

    Read more:

  • David

    Odd thing . . . I haven’t seen any links to the text of the Judge’s decision. Can’t say I’m surprised, since it’s obvious the fundies didn’t present much of a case (only two witnesses). And their loss was so bad that they’re misrepresenting the reason for their bad showing (It wasn’t because we only had two witnesses and neither one knew much about the subject matter).

    I sure hope someone makes a movie out of this to educate the general public on the basics of Constitutional rights.

  • Jaroslaw

    I was discussing this with a friend today and she said that if the Fundy’s did soo0oooo badly, in this court case, is it possible that they are saving better arguments against SSM for the Supreme Court?

    Even for Christee Crazees, I would think they would know better than to say “I don’t know” when asked about one of their main points – “how are het marriages threatened by Gay ones.”

  • Jaroslaw

    #107 the link of the whole decisions is here!

  • John K.

    @Forgiveness_Man: I’d bet my life savings that you didn’t even read the decision…

  • Jaroslaw

    John K – why are people like Forgiveness Man even here? There was a blog entry about Gay bars, I forget which one, and one guy says “straights please stay out of my Gay bar. You have 97% of the rest of the world, let us Gay people have our one spot.” Now I personally am not in favor of exclusion, but I understand what he means.

    The straight world controls 97% of the media too, one almost never sees Gay people when “love” or “romance” is discussed; “couples” always means a man/woman pair etc.

    So Fundys, please stay off our Blog. We already know your point of view, most of us grew up with it. YOU are the ones who refuse to even consider ours.

Comments are closed.