[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/prop-8-overturned\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/prop-8-overturned\/","headline":"Prop 8 Overturned","name":"Prop 8 Overturned","description":"By Kirsten Palladino In the hotly anticipated ruling Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today that the voter-approved law known...","datePublished":"2010-08-04","dateModified":"2021-06-21","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/author\/admin\/#Person","name":"Equally Wed","url":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/author\/admin\/","identifier":787,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca62cf123aaaf135c80b055249bacbda79de9226e11cdfcde6529bedf89683de?s=96&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca62cf123aaaf135c80b055249bacbda79de9226e11cdfcde6529bedf89683de?s=96&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Equally Wed","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","url":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","width":218,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","url":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","width":218,"height":60},"url":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/prop-8-overturned\/","about":["Marriage Equality News"],"wordCount":501,"articleBody":" By Kirsten PalladinoIn 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.\u2022 “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize  plaintiffs\u2019 objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest  that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples  across the state enjoy \u2014\u2014 namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask  California to recognize their relationships for what they are:  marriages.”\u2022 “Domestic  partnerships do not satisfy California’s obligation to allow  plaintiffs to marry.”\u2022 “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.'”\u2022 “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.”\u2022 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 Prop 8 Ruling FINAL"},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Prop 8 Overturned","item":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/prop-8-overturned\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]