Proposition 8 Overturned

Today was meant to have been book day here at What We Covet, nd I may have mentioned before that I try not to get too political here, but in light of a certain event yesterday, I would very much like to share with you a very important piece of legislation.

On Wednesday, 4 August 2010, United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled California Proposition 8 unconstitutional in a federal court. The 136-page decision gives a history of the legal battle and a response to the evidence presented by both sides. Below you will find a selection of important highlights from the ruling.

"The court asked the parties to identify a difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals that the government might fairly need to take into account when crafting legislation. Proponents pointed only to a difference between same-sex couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and opposite-sex couples (some of whom are capable through sexual intercourse of producing such offspring). Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the government may need to take into account fertility when legislating" (121-2).

"All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation" (122).

"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" (123). 

"Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. The 'ancient lineage' of a classification does not make it rational. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself" (124).

"Proposition 8 [...] 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 tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state's interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender" (124). 

"Moreover, the evidence shows that the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected if the state ceases to enforce Proposition 8. [...] Indeed, proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage" (126).

"The inability to marry denies same-sex couples the benefits, including stability, attendant to marriage" (128).

"Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples, because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex" (130).

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8" (130-1).

"Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples" (132).

Section title: A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION (132).

"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. [...] The evidence shows [...] that  Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual" (133-4).

"Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment" (135).

Although the battle is far from over (an appeal is an inevitability), and while the ban on same-sex marriage remains in place for the time being (due to a temporary stay on the ruling), Judge Walker has nevertheless taken an important step to protect the rights of a group who have long suffered discrimination and injury and are finally making headway toward equality. As a bisexual woman with a transgendered best friend and numerous gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances, I cannot begin to say how much I truly appreciate Judge Walker's efforts, as well as the efforts of all those men and women who have come before him and will continue to blaze ahead.

Read the entire decision here.

-Cate-