Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in Calif.
Updated at 10:48 p.m. ET
A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Gay couples waved rainbow and American flags and erupted with cheers in the city that has long been a haven for gays.
More on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned; What's Next?
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
CBS News's Priya David Clemens reports from Los Angeles that same-sex marriage supporters, mindful of the 52 percent of Californians who voted for the ban, will continue outreach efforts to sway public opinion their way.
Shelly Bailes held a sign reading "Life Feels Different When You're Married" as she embraced her wife, Ellen Pontac. People in the Castro neighborhood toasted with champagne as word of the ruling spread.
In New York City, about 150 people gathered outside a lower Manhattan courthouse. They carried signs saying "Our Love Wins" as organizers read portions of the ruling.
Walker methodically rejected every argument posed by sponsors of the ban in response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban, violated their civil rights.
"Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," the judge wrote in his 136-page opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."
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.
"Our courts are supposed to protect our Constitutional rights," lead plaintiff Kris Perry said as Sandy Stier, her partner of 10 years, stood at her side. "Today, they did."
Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defense team.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately.
Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.
The appeal would go first to the 9th Circuit then to the U.S. Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
California's electorate passed Proposition 8 in November 2008 after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "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," the judge wrote.
He also said 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.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
The plaintiffs presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.
Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court had never specifically upheld the right to gay marriage.
The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.
Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
The ruling puts Walker, a Republican, at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.
He was appointed by President Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Gay couples waved rainbow and American flags and erupted with cheers in the city that has long been a haven for gays.
More on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned; What's Next?
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
CBS News's Priya David Clemens reports from Los Angeles that same-sex marriage supporters, mindful of the 52 percent of Californians who voted for the ban, will continue outreach efforts to sway public opinion their way.
Shelly Bailes held a sign reading "Life Feels Different When You're Married" as she embraced her wife, Ellen Pontac. People in the Castro neighborhood toasted with champagne as word of the ruling spread.
In New York City, about 150 people gathered outside a lower Manhattan courthouse. They carried signs saying "Our Love Wins" as organizers read portions of the ruling.
Walker methodically rejected every argument posed by sponsors of the ban in response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban, violated their civil rights.
"Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," the judge wrote in his 136-page opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."
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.
"Our courts are supposed to protect our Constitutional rights," lead plaintiff Kris Perry said as Sandy Stier, her partner of 10 years, stood at her side. "Today, they did."
Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defense team.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately.
Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.
The appeal would go first to the 9th Circuit then to the U.S. Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
California's electorate passed Proposition 8 in November 2008 after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "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," the judge wrote.
He also said 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.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
The plaintiffs presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.
Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court had never specifically upheld the right to gay marriage.
The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.
Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
The ruling puts Walker, a Republican, at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.
He was appointed by President Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Port Authority releases photo of One WTC workers at dizzying heights
- Bridge collapse blamed on tractor-trailer 287 Comments
- Washington state bridge collapses 20 Photos
- Best U.S. beaches 2013 10 Photos
- Frantic 911 calls reveal chaos in Okla., following tornado
- No fatalities in I-5 bridge collapse in NW Wash. 141 Comments
- Clean-up efforts underway in Okla. 29 Photos
- Baby gray foxes arrive at Ind. wolf park Play Video
1) you cannot show where the 14th amendment excludes gays
2) you think Freedom of Speech protects you from private citizens
3) you think I'm a lib, when I'm simply not a social-only conservative.
So please, spend some time working on fixing those misconceptions, and quit wasting my time.
.
Guess what! There is no bigfoot, either. You know how I know? Because no one can point one out or produce one or even show any real evidence of one. Many claim it is real."
Just like there's no "God".
Guess what! There is no bigfoot, either. You know how I know? Because no one can point one out or produce one or even show any real evidence of one. Many claim it is real."
Just like there's no "God".
.
I said there is no mention of gay rights under the 14th amendment. Since it does not exist, I can't show it."
No, you said that the omission was proof of exclusion.
"Since it does not exist, I can't show it. You claim it does and I asked you to show it since I've obviously missed it. If you can't or refuse to do so it is quanifiable proof that you are a liar with no argument."
I never claimed an exclusion for gays appears in the 14th amendment. Another of your lies.
Look - just give it up. I'll return the insult, since you richly deserve it: you're a moron, and have proven it on today's thread.
.
If you are going to forever waffle and lie after I've answered you several times, there is just no use wasting time with you. Until you back up any claim you make, yours is just an empty argument for arguments' sake.
LOL!
.
the original question was put to you a while ago to back up your claim of sexual orientation as a right under the 14th amendment. Still waiting.
And..
You think that the constitution does not protect against rights violations from private citizens but you claim some mythical gay right that doesn't exist.
What an idiot!
Please repost where I said that. You can't, because it's a lie.
Calling me an idiot, unprovoked? Trying to change the subject? Says a lot about you.
.
the original question was put to you a while ago to back up your claim of sexual orientation as a right under the 14th amendment. Still waiting.
1) you cannot show where the 14th amendment excludes gays
2) you think Freedom of Speech protects you from private citizens
3) you think I'm a lib, when I'm simply not a social-only conservative.
So please, spend some time working on fixing those misconceptions, and quit wasting my time.
.
Waffle waffle lie lie...
Waffle waffle, lie lie
WsSshoooooeeooo(sound of breeze )
Don't blame me for your lack of study.
You think that the constitution does not protect against rights violations from private citizens"
Actually, that's the only lie I've seen presented here. We were discussing Freedom of Speech, which you clearly had no clue about.
Not a lib
-----------------------
Please. Not a lib?
Everything that comes out of your mouth is atraight out of the daily kos, move on.org, netroots, jounalisto taliking points of the day. George Soros owns you lock, stock and barrell. He is number 35 on the most richest list and with the help of you political indoctrinated brainwash minions he will get to be number1 even passing the Mexican guy. Shame he won't share it with you. he might let you kiss his ring if you are lucky and keep working so diligently for him.
You think I'm a lib? Tell me what ideology fits me, as here are my political beliefs:
- no welfare, whether personal or corporate
- no military involvement unless for defense, as per Ron Paul, which is also all that's Constitutional, if you actually care about that
- abolish personal income tax; a flat national sales tax only
- for term limits
- against illegal immigrants and especially their employers.
So deny all you want, but it's only because I don't share your SOCIAL conservative ideas that you think I'm a lib. Go fish, fella.
.
You think I'm a lib? Tell me what ideology fits me, as here are my political beliefs:
- no welfare, whether personal or corporate
- no military involvement unless for defense, as per Ron Paul, which is also all that's Constitutional, if you actually care about that
- abolish personal income tax; a flat national sales tax only
- for term limits
- against illegal immigrants and especially their employers.
So deny all you want, but it's only because I don't share your SOCIAL conservative ideas that you think I'm a lib. Go fish, fella.
.