Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned; What's Next?

In San Francisco, a federal judge declared California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, unconstitutional Wednesday. The ban was approved by voters there in 2008, and it's sure to feature heavily in mid-term elections everywhere in 2010.

CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford reports that gay and lesbian couples will not be allowed to marry immediately. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker decided Wednesday afternoon that his ruling will not go into effect immediately.

This ruling is the first federal court test of a same-sex marriage ban, so these are unchartered waters. Walker wrote in his opinion that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage, just like straight people do.

This is a devastating opinion for opponents of same-sex marriage. In his wording, the judge isn't just wading into the cultural wars, he is diving in. It's a forceful defense not only of same-sex marriage but of gay people.

There are 80 different findings of fact, including that "same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history" and that "same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples and that religious beliefs that homosexual relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians."

As for whether the case will head for the Supreme Court, that's been the plan from day one. The lawyers in this case always have had an eye on the court. They believe the justices are ready to rule there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but that's a big gamble.

The court is closely divided on key social issues with four conservatives and four liberals and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle. In many ways, this issue - which would change the way states across the country define marriage - could well hinge on one justice.

More on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in Calif.
Prop. 8 Decision: Social Conservatives Lash Out
Prop. 8 Ruling Matters Less than Judge's Findings
Lawyer: Children Benefit from Gay Marriage Ban
Prop 8 Backers Show Churches Varied on Ban

[Roberthagedorn]

No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, gays in the military, etc., the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence in the story, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.

[dwmusic01]

This has been criticised by many, not just proponents of Proposition 8, as 'undemocratic', however the role of this court was not to assess or to respond to the will of the people. It was charged solely with determining whether this Proposition should ever have been brought before the People in the first place, on the grounds that it breached the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by denying a select minority the right to marry a person of their choice. This same Amendment was successfully invoked to overturn anti-miscegenation laws preventing blacks and whites from intermarrying. In any case, the 7 million votes recorded for Proposition 8 in California (=only 39% of its population) fall well and truly short of the federal majority required to amend the US Constitution.

Direct Democracy, in other words Anarchy, would succeed only if the population were all sufficiently well educated and in possession of all the facts. This is why governments are allowed to get on with the job once they have convinced the electorate of their competency and probity to do the job. Handing 100% of the power over to the people means you wouldn't need government at all.

Speaking for myself, I elect politicians into high office to act not only in the interests of the majority, but also in my best interests. If I am not happy, I can lobby for change, vote differently next time, or stand for public office myself.

I think the present system serves the interests of the majority better than some might realise. Trampling over minorities doesn't serve the country in the long run. As we have already seen to our great cost, terrorism can be practised by surprising small numbers of people with devastating consequences for comparatively large numbers of people.

I have never heard gay and lesbian lobbyists ask for any more than an equal share of the wealth and benefits we all participate in creating.

The human race may well depend upon homosexuality for its very survival on three grounds:

1. Overpopulation by heterosexuals could ultimately suffocate the earth.
2. Homosexuals provide unencumbered labour while heterosexuals are preoccupied with raising children.
3. In the event of a holocaust, homosexuals can still provide viable breeding stock.

Nature may be even smarter, and more paradoxical than we think.

[californiagirl11]

You admit that nature is smart, well nature itself shows us the way things are supposed to be. Men are supposed to be with women and women are supposed to be with men. This is a clear and obvious fact that has always been right and natural. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What homosexuals are asking for is not for equal rights. They are asking for us to go against the whole law of nature and ignore the plan that God purposefully designed for mankind to follow. It's not natural or right for men to marry men or women to marry women and regardless of what laws are passed, it will never be right.

[WinstonCourt]

You would think these public servants, government and the courts would be swift in moving away from all this and their ignorance and demonstration of lack of education. It is apparent, from their statements and decisions they were, and perhaps still are, ignorant to the simple fact that God gave marriage to man in a time predating government and courts. They, government and the courts, are best to obey their own ends and workings and leave marriage alone for their claim of there being a separation of church and state. The book of Genesis, a compilation of oral traditions handed down since antiquity and the apparent beginning of man, and finally recorded by Moses, around 1440-1400 B.C., is the strongest evidence of their, government and courts, lack of authority to be involved in marriage. Have things worsened to the point they can no longer even recognize their own ignorance and errors? Then surely, the times written of, about satan taking rule, are here upon us! Or, are they claiming they have already held trial and decided against God and in their favor?
Besides, there is no inequality, as this article points out: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100808

[JayAdler1]

Growing up on Manhattan's Upper West Side beginning in 1951 and before gentrification. the neighborhood was a mixed bag of just about everyone good and bad. Gays lived together and ran businesses. When I was a young man two gay businessman gave me a a stockroom job in the clothing industry and I became proportionately successful as an adolescent. I have nothing to object to when it comes to gays desiring a marriage certificate. What I do not understand is whether benefits and entitlements could be assumed as they are in a heterosexual marriage. That part of any new law should be weighed by necessity. With a multi trillion dollar deficit and high unemployment, bringing a few million individuals into private industry insurance or governmental whereas one partner is vested and the other is new and maybe eligible is something to think about.

[Threewarriors]

Homosexuals cant be married. They might have a civil union, thats OK. But two people of the same sex cant reproduce. No matter how hard you slam 2 homosexual bodies together, it wont happen. Believe me I have tried to do it, but I couldnt get them to reproduce no matter how hard I slammed them together. LMAO. ahahhaah

[AlanW21126p]

What a load of cr*p this is. The whiny insipid radical gays who make up around 3% of the population are sore losers. They simply couldnt accept the will of the people of CA, so they hunted down and found one of only 3 openly gay federal judges in the WHOLE COUNTRY, and finangled to get this case in front of him. So big freeking surprise that Mr Flaming Gay Judge rules in favor of Gays. Sorry folks, but even if you got 99% of the country to agree with you(and you wont) a gay marriages will NEVER be a real marriage. You can call a t*urd a rock a million times, but you know what? It's still a t*urd.

[californiagirl11]

I agree completely, you rock!!!! lol

[AlanW21126p]

What a load of cr**p this is. The whiny insipid radical g*ays who make up around 3% of the population are sore losers. They simply couldnt accept the will of the people of CA, so they hunted down and found one of only 3 openly g*ay federal judges in the WHOLE COUNTRY, and finangled to get this case in front of him. So big fr*eeking surprise that Mr Flaming G*ay Judge rules in favor of G*ays. Sorry folks, but even if you got 99% of the country to agree with you(and you wont) a g*ay marriages will NEVER be a real marriage. You can call a t*urd a rock a million times, but you know what? It's still a t*urd.

[AlanW21126p]

gjhg

[AlanW21126p]

I love decisions like this.

Heck, my stocks in K-Y, amyl nitrate poppers, Key West bath houses,HIV medications, and leather goods all went up 43% today!

I'm rich!!!!

[newsbarn]

POLYGAMY IS NEXT AND I CANT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!