In the hotly anticipated ruling Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today that the voter-approved law known as Prop 8, which stripped California’s same-sex couples of the right to legally marry, is unconstitutional, violating both due process and equal protection clauses.
Some main points from the ruling, as culled by our friends at Queerty.com.
• “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”
• “Domestic partnerships do not satisfy California’s obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry.”
• “PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON. Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny. Zablocki, 434 US at 388. 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.'”
• “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.”
• PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS. 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. One example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them. But marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed. See Background to Proposition 8 above.”
More:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence 3 that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection 4 rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional 5 violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 6 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex 7 couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- 8 sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, 9 see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED
