|
Standing in front of eight American flags at a news conference, the two couples behind the case beamed and choked up as they related their feelings of validation. "Tomorrow will feel different because tomorrow I will have a sense of security I have not had," said Sandy Stier, as her partner of 10 years, Kris Perry, stood at her side. "Because of this decision I will know we are treated the same under the law as everybody else." Defense lawyers argued at trial that the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing. But they called just two witnesses, compared to the 18 put on by the plaintiffs, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court had never recognized a right to same-sex marriage. But in declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Walker accepted every argument advanced by the plaintiffs and methodically rejected every claim made by the defense. Preventing gays from marrying does nothing to strengthen heterosexual unions or serve any purpose that justifies its discriminatory effect, but harms children with same-sex parents and "the state's interest in equality," he wrote. "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," Walker said. "Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages." Describing the defense case as "a rather limited factual presentation," he also said its proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays
-- beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. "Proposition 8 played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker wrote. The ruling puts Walker, a Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush, at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the second verdict in a federal gay marriage case to come down in less than a month. In July, a District Court judge in Massachusetts decided in July that the state's legally married gay and lesbian couples had been wrongly denied the federal financial benefits of marriage because of a law preventing the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor