Unconstitutional!

[Mike]

That was the headline (and the only text above the fold) on Thursday's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle.

On Wednesday, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled:

CONCLUSION

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.

The judge is certain this will be appealed, so even though he ordered that the state no longer enforce Proposition 8, he placed a temporary stay on the ban while he considers whether to suspend his ruling during the appeal.

Local legal analysts noted that Walker's ruling (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf?tsp=1) is very well written and pretty much is ready for Supreme Court analysis.

[Judy G. Russell]

Local legal analysts noted that Walker's ruling (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf?tsp=1) is very well written and pretty much is ready for Supreme Court analysis.They're absolutely right. Two things combined to help here enormously. First, the idiots defending Prop 8 didn't put in any kind of factual case, and second, the two very significant legal minds that represented the opponents (liberal David Boies and conservative Ted Olson) DID put in a thorough factual case. That could end up spelling the difference.

[MollyM/CA]

And now the fun begins! The claims and counterclaims dissing/undissing Walker (whose decision's high quality is remarked on by all ilk) are making me dizzy already.

"high quality" is an awful expression for a carefully thought out and apparently brilliantly written work, brain's frying, can't produce phrase I want--

m

[Mike]

... the idiots defending Prop 8 didn't put in any kind of factual case...
...because a factual case would have been contradictory to their premise?

... the two very significant legal minds that represented the opponents (liberal David Boies and conservative Ted Olson) DID put in a thorough factual case.
It's still hard to believe that pair collaborated on this, though Olson has commented several times that he doesn't believe it's a liberal/conservative thing, it's a human rights thing.

That could end up spelling the difference.
Several analysts have also commented that the ruling was written specifically for Kennedy, who has been the swing vote in several gay rights issues.

[sidney]

First, the idiots defending Prop 8 didn't put in any kind of factual case

Speaking of the idiots who defended Prop 8, I see in the ruling that Mike linked to that they are listed as "Defendant-Intervenors", as "official proponents of Proposition 8", doing the defense because the actual defendants agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and don't want to defend.

Judy, would the defendant-intervenors have standing to appeal the decision or would they have to show some direct harm to themselves that would result from Prop 8 being defeated?

[Judy G. Russell]

...because a factual case would have been contradictory to their premise?More likely because they don't HAVE any facts.

[Judy G. Russell]

Judy, would the defendant-intervenors have standing to appeal the decision or would they have to show some direct harm to themselves that would result from Prop 8 being defeated?Yep, an intervenor has the same appeal rights as the original defendant.