The judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs: that Proposition 8 is a violation of equal protection and thus unconstitutional. I'm skimming the decision, which ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cynthia1960 linked to: the judge found the defense (i.e. anti-marriage) witnesses to have no credibility, and pointed out that one of them had said very different things about anti-gay discrimination and the referendum process before he was hired as an "expert."
In addition to the basic good thing, overturning the damned proposition, the decision, which is based on equal protection and due process, gives a history of California marriage and divorce law, lists some of the ways marriage can benefit couples, and notes that is costing the state money. And there are some nice quotes: to deal with the argument that same-sex couples can't procreate, he quotes Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he pointed out if moral disapproval of homosexuality is not relevant, there is no basis for denying same-sex couples marriage, and that no, sterility isn't one, as mixed-sex couples who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. Somehow I don't think that's how he meant that dissent to be used.
The judge has stayed his decision on the expectation of appeal, so nothing will happen yet, but this is a good sign.
cynthia1960 linked to: the judge found the defense (i.e. anti-marriage) witnesses to have no credibility, and pointed out that one of them had said very different things about anti-gay discrimination and the referendum process before he was hired as an "expert." In addition to the basic good thing, overturning the damned proposition, the decision, which is based on equal protection and due process, gives a history of California marriage and divorce law, lists some of the ways marriage can benefit couples, and notes that is costing the state money. And there are some nice quotes: to deal with the argument that same-sex couples can't procreate, he quotes Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he pointed out if moral disapproval of homosexuality is not relevant, there is no basis for denying same-sex couples marriage, and that no, sterility isn't one, as mixed-sex couples who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. Somehow I don't think that's how he meant that dissent to be used.
The judge has stayed his decision on the expectation of appeal, so nothing will happen yet, but this is a good sign.
Tags:
