News, Prop 8 ruling adds meaning to my marriage
From PinkApproved
August 17th
Court blocks California gay marriage
LOS ANGELES — A US court has blocked same-sex marriages in California until at least December while an appeal of a landmark decision to overturn a state ban is considered.
The decision by the federal court of appeals came hours after gay marriage opponents urged the ban on the unions to be maintained in the West Coast state.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion for a stay and scheduled further proceedings on the appeal to take place the week of December 6 in San Francisco.
The ruling halted an anticipated rush of gay marriages after Judge Vaughn Walker last week authorized same-sex weddings to begin again on August 18 in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue.
Opponents of gay marriage argued in their appeal that most of the United States and the majority of countries worldwide do not allow gay marriage because the institution of marriage serves a societal interest.
“California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest,” the appeal said.
The purpose of marriage is between members of the opposite sex “to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation,” it said.
Some 18,000 gay and lesbian couples tied the knot between May and November 2008 when gay marriage was briefly allowed by the state of California.
Currently only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the US capital Washington, recognize gay marriage.
Both California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown had filed motions last Friday demanding same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
Walker had last week found in favor of activists who argued that the California referendum which barred same-sex marriage was discriminatory and therefore violated the US Constitution.
The referendum, known as Proposition 8, was passed by a 52 percent majority in November 2008, only six months after California’s Supreme Court overturned a previous ban on same-sex weddings, sending gays and lesbians flocking to marry.
Legal experts believe the case is almost certain to end up before the US Supreme Court in around two years, once appeals hearings in lower courts have run their course
..........
August 13th
Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week that banning gay marriage in the state is unconstitutional but ruled on Thursday that his verdict should apply now, rather than staying the order while gay marriage opponents appeal.
However, the week-long delay means that gay marriage opponents can appeal to a higher court to keep the ban in place.
Judge Walker wrote: “The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest.
“Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels against entry of the stay proponents seek.”
If no order to keep the ban is made, gay couples can begin marrying again on Wednesday August 18th.
California legalised marriage for gay couples in 2008 but the voter initiative Proposition 8 struck it down in the same year.
Judge Walker’s verdict comes after a three-week trial in February, which was the first federal trial to examine the issue.
Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown had asked the him to lift the stay.
The issue is expected to be contested all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Shared by Gino Meriano @ PinkApproved.com
Washington (CNN) -- Two federal judges have made an important difference in my life recently. I am a lawyer, and judges' rulings frequently have a professional effect. But this time, it's personal.
This spring, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia officiated at my marriage to my partner of 13 years, Jim, under the laws of the District of Columbia, where we live. On Wednesday, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative in California denying same-sex marriage violated fundamental legal rights guaranteed by law.
His ruling has given my marriage even greater meaning. The restoration of rights to others and the further recognition of the right to marry makes the enjoyment of our rights even more fulfilling.
Judge Walker wrote in a 136-page decision that Prop 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution, concluding:
"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."
That, of course, is not the last word on the subject, as appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and to the United States Supreme Court are expected. But, the thorough analysis following a lengthy trial and the thorough recognition of the right to same-sex marriage as a matter of constitutional law creates a high barrier for opponents to surmount.
Late last year, our elected officials in D.C. passed a bill permitting equal marriage rights, which the mayor signed and which Congress, vested with the power to reject D.C. laws, wisely left alone.
And last month, our highest court rejected attempts to put a D.C. version of Proposition 8 on the ballot this fall, agreeing that our local Board of Elections and Ethics had the right to deny an initiative measure.
Jim and I decided to make a lifetime commitment to each other, under law, our newly granted right.
Opponents of the law, led by area pastors, were confident that they could have stirred the passions of voters to vote against gay marriage, given the chance. The Prop 8 playbook, recently detailed in a report on the California initiative, relied on misleading scare tactics suggesting that children would be recruited by gays in school if the marriage law stood. Presumably, that playbook would have been used here in an ugly hate campaign.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that a ballot initiative to deny equal marriage rights conflicts with the District's 1973 Human Rights Law, which declares that "[e]very individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate ... in all aspects of life."
The court found that the initiative measure "would authorize or have the effect of authorizing discrimination on a basis prohibited by the Human Rights Act." Likewise, Judge Walker in California found that the ballot initiative there was nothing more than a vehicle for discrimination.
At our March wedding, the presiding judge observed that our marriage was a "historic event."
"It is, of course, historic in the lives of Jim and Chris, who will be transformed from domestic partners into a true lawfully married couple," he said. "But it also is a historic event because just weeks ago, it would not have been legally possible.
"Thanks to our local government and to the good judgment of Congress, equal marriage rights are now the law here in D.C. Chris and Jim have fought for the right to marry for many years -- not just for themselves but for all loving, committed couples like them. So, how wonderful it is that they are among the first to benefit from the change in the law."
Later in the ceremony, he observed that Jim and I, "have supported each other through illnesses and loss, and as changes have come their way. And as anyone who knows them will attest, they are both fiercely loyal -- to their families, their friends, their commitments, and most of all to each other. They truly epitomize what marriage is all about."
Quoting from the Massachusetts case that paved the way for Judge Walker's ruling, he said: "Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. Marriage fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity. Civil marriage is an esteemed institution and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition."
Our marriage represented the ultimate coming together of two people in love, friendship, and companionship. Jim and I decided to make a lifetime commitment to each other, under law -- our newly granted right. As we approach our five-month anniversary (and the 13th anniversary of our meeting), what better way to celebrate than to receive the news that other committed couples are again vested with their civil rights in California.
Shared by Gino Meriano at PinkApproved.com
