UPDATED BELOW
It is being reported that Prop. 8 has been overturned by the trial court.
It's going to take some time to digest the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling once we get it off the court's public document server but I think the the basics are clear. The Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution say – pretty clearly – that everyone, I repeat, everyone, in America has the right to be free of government sanctioned discrimination.
You can not be denied protection or benefits of the law because people don't like your lifestyle, the end.
And xtians, put a sock in it... a gay couple tying the knot is in no way harming you. No, don't even bring that shit here, because you will get run under a hail of cold mockery, pointed questioning and a vicious rhetorical beat down.
We will be updating this as we get more information...
UPDATE 1:
Here is the full Perry decision.
Although it's 138 pages of pretty tight legal writing that deconstructs the anti-gay bigotry of Prop. 8 at every (and I mean every) turn, it's basis is really simple. Here's the nut:
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.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943). Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977). Because the government defendants declined to advance such arguments, proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a compelling California interest in Proposition 8.
[...]
As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review.
Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976) (noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or general social and vocational capabilities.”
It looks like a motion to stay the decision pending appeal has been temporarily granted, pending arguments for and against such an order to be heard by August 6.
We'll have more on this later...
mojo sends
