The evangelical Christian ministry Focus on the Family is convinced that too many public schools are intent on preventing bullying of gay, lesbian and transgender students at the expense of the free expression rights of Christian students.

A Focus on the Family spokeswoman told The Denver Post, as noted at TPM, that, "We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled."

But GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, maintains that students' free speech rights, which are limited in public schools primarily because public schools are not wide- open public forums and the federal courts have consistently held that educators have great discretion in controlling the curriculum and ensuring safety of students, are not the issue here. Instead GLSEN says too many gay students are the victims of bullying and supports local and federal efforts to curb the incidents. A 2005 GLSEN and Harris Interactive report showed nearly 65 percent of middle and high school students had been subjected to bullying and a 2007 GLSEN report revealed that a little more than 86 percent of LGBT students were victims of bullying at school.

The group is urging Congress to pass a bill introduced earlier this month by Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey called the Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA), which would include protections against bullying of gay, lesbian and transgender students.

"Our nation has failed to address the pervasive problem of bullying and harassment in schools for far too long. Countless youth are denied access to education every day because they do not feel safe in school. Passing the Safe Schools Act would go a long way toward laying the necessary foundation of support lacking in many American schools," GLSEN Executive Director Eliza Byard said in a press statement.

Byard told The Denver Post that GLSEN's efforts to stop bullying of LGBT students do not subvert the religious speech of other students. She noted that, "The word ‘faggot' is not part of any religious creed," and that her group has worked with other organizations, such as the Christian Educators Association International and the First Amendment Center, on sexual orientation issues in the public schools.

[image via Flickr]

---

Doug NeJaime is Associate Professor of Law at Loyola Law School - Los Angeles. He teaches in the areas of Ethical Lawyering and Law & Sexuality.

---

The unwillingness of California's Attorney General and governor to defend Proposition 8 - and the corresponding presence of Proposition 8 proponents as the amendment's defenders - has yielded a procedural mess. But with all the discussion of Proposition 8 proponents' impact on procedure, it is easy to overlook their significant impact on substance: With the actual supporters of the proposition replacing the increasingly pro-gay state as the law's defender, the explicit connection between sex and sexual orientation discrimination has surfaced.

When the California Attorney General defended California's (statutory) marriage restriction in the state litigation (In re Marriage Cases), he refused to rely on governmental interests related to procreation and dual-gender childrearing. As I have noted elsewhere, this refusal reflected the mainstreaming of a gay equality norm as both a political and legal matter. In the awkward position of defending the law without resort to its key substantive purposes, the Attorney General merely asked the court to defer to the voters' desire (as evidenced by Proposition 22) to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

With the shift toward more federal litigation on gay rights issues, we have seen a similar trajectory in the arguments offered by the (increasingly pro-gay) government in defense of anti-gay laws. For instance, the Justice Department has refused to stand behind rationales related to procreation and childrearing when defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal litigation in Massachusetts. Indeed, in arguing that "the government does not believe that DOMA can be justified by interests in ‘responsible procreation' or ‘child-rearing,' " Justice Department lawyers admitted that "children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents." When Judge Tauro found DOMA unconstitutional as applied to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, he noted the government's unwillingness to stand behind DOMA's actual purposes and rejected the government's newly manufactured rationale, which had no substantive content and amounted to a wait-and-see approach to marriage equality.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal litigation challenging Proposition 8, the California Attorney General resolved his earlier inconsistency (and unease) by moving wholeheartedly to the side of marriage equality and leaving no government lawyers to defend the amendment. Enter the Proposition 8 proponents as the party charged in the federal litigation with defending its constitutionality. Finally, the substantive reasons behind marriage restrictions get their day in court. The proponents urged Judge Walker to uphold Proposition 8 not merely based on deference to voter preferences and tradition, but also as part of the government's role in channeling procreation and childrearing into dual-gender, married households. Children, Proposition 8 proponents argued, need a mother and a father because mothers and fathers (wives and husbands, women and men) fulfill different and complementary roles. Through this lens, men function as breadwinners while women become homemakers and caretakers; men teach their children about ambition, hard work, and independence, while women nurture their children with love and encouragement. As Protect Marriage's Ron Prentice put it (in a statement that Judge Walker quoted in his opinion):

Children need the chance to have both mother love and father love . . . [M]oms and dads, male and female, complement each other. They don't bring to marriage and to a family the same natural set of skills and talents and abilities. They bring to children the blessing of both masculinity and femininity.

In this framework, preventing same-sex couples from marrying preserves the sex-differentiated roles that Proposition 8 proponents believe men and women should play in marriage and the family.

Marriage equality advocates have pointed out the connection between marriage restrictions and gender roles in earlier litigations. But state courts considering same-sex couples' right to marry have consistently rejected or neglected the way in which marriage restrictions rely on and perpetuate sex stereotypes that subordinate women. While disappointing, this hardly seems surprising; state officials defending the restrictions increasingly refuse to explicitly rely on gender norms, and arguments about sex stereotypes are often buried in amicus briefs.

But Proposition 8 proponents' direct role in the Perry litigation forced Judge Walker to fully consider the sex-based implications of Proposition 8. Arguments based on sex stereotypes now constituted part of the principal case put forward by the proposition's defenders. And where Proposition 8 supporters saw legitimate justifications for the amendment, Judge Walker saw impermissible sex stereotypes, concluding that "Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage."

For all the confusion introduced by Proposition 8 proponents' role in the litigation, their presence has made one thing crystal clear: Laws that prohibit marriage for same-sex couples constitute just one part of a broader normative framework of the family that harms individuals based on both sex and sexual orientation.

---

By Rick Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School - Los Angeles and Publisher, Election Law Blog.

---

Does this week's Ninth Circuit order putting on hold any gay marriages in California pending the resolution of appeals in the case mean that the appellate court is likely to reverse Judge Walker's decision declaring California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional? Or, to the contrary, does the fact that the Ninth Circuit also ordered the Proposition 8 proponents to brief the question whether the initiative proponents have standing to appeal in the case mean that the Court is likely to dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits? I believe caution is in order, and that proponents and opponents of gay marriage should read very little into the Ninth Circuit's order as to how that court is likely to decide the Proposition 8 case. But the Ninth Circuit's decision to issue a stay could increase the chances that the Supreme Court ultimately will side with gay marriage supporters.

Let's begin with the tenuous relationship between the stay order and an ultimate resolution of this case in the Ninth Circuit. As ACSBlog readers no doubt know, on August 4, federal district judge Vaughn Walker declared unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses California's Proposition 8, an initiated constitutional amendment which bars same sex-marriage. On August 12, Judge Walker denied the request by Proposition 8's proponents to stay his ruling pending appeal, though he issued a temporary stay to allow the proponents time to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit. Judge Walker's stay denial raised the question whether initiative proponents have adequate standing to bring an appeal in the case (given that California government officials have aligned themselves with plaintiffs' position that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and were not going to appeal).

Proposition 8 proponents then sought a stay from the Ninth Circuit; otherwise, under Judge Walker's order, gay marriage would have been legal as of 5 p.m. today. On paper, appellate courts are supposed to give considerable deference to a trial court judge's decision to grant temporary relief such as a preliminary injunction or a stay. In practice, in hot button cases the Ninth Circuit has shown little deference to district court stay decisions and the Supreme Court has shown even less deference to the Ninth Circuit.

Under the Ninth Circuit's general orders, emergency stay motions are decided by a "motions panel" of up to three judges, assigned monthly on a rotating basis. The judges who decided the Proposition 8 stay order are not the same judges who will decide the ultimate appeal. Instead, three other judges - possibly the judges who decided an earlier appeal in the case involving the use of a video feed of the trial - will be deciding the merits of the appeal.

So one reason why the Ninth Circuit's decision on the stay is not a likely reflection of what the Ninth Circuit will do on the merits of the appeal is that the decisionmakers are not the same (unless, of course, the same judges on the motions panel are chosen by chance). Even so, some have suggested that the decision to grant a stay must have reflected a belief on the part of the motions panel that the appeal had merit, because judges are supposed to take likelihood of success on appeal into account in deciding whether or not to grant a stay. Though it is possible that likelihood of success on appeal played a part in the motions panel's decision, my guess (and it is only a guess, because the motions panel offered no explanation for its stay order) is that a stronger factor was a desire to preserve the status quo pending appeal. Without a stay, there could have been a number of gay marriages performed while the case was on appeal, and in the event that Judge Walker's decision was reversed on the merits, then there would be further litigation over the status of those marriages and potentially a lot of disappointed people and difficult financial and family law issues to untangle. Preserving the status quo has always been a very strong factor in considering whether or not a stay should be granted.

Nor would I make much of the fact that the Ninth Circuit motions panel directed the proponents to address the standing question. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and it is only prudent to have a jurisdictional issue like standing fully briefed once it was raised by Judge Walker. Indeed, in a little-noticed second order yesterday, the same motions panel also consolidated an appeal of the Proposition 8 ruling by Imperial County (a supporter of Proposition 8), raising the possibility that Imperial County could be found to have standing in the case. If the mention of standing in the first order meant the judges were dubious about standing, the second order meant the judges were thinking of a way out of the standing problem.

There's one more reason why at least some of the judges on the Ninth Circuit motions panel could have supported a stay besides concern about the status quo: It makes it more likely that the Supreme Court would ultimately find Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Had the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Walker's denial of a stay, the issue would have fallen into the lap of Justice Kennedy (the Supreme Court Justice who handles emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit) on an expedited schedule. Observers believe he's likely the swing vote on Proposition 8's constitutionality, and an emergency stay request could have brought the issue to him without giving him time for adequate reflection and rumination on the constitutional issues.

Now the case is on the back burner. The Ninth Circuit can be very slow in issuing opinions. There's no deadline after the scheduled December argument for the court to issue an opinion. Once an opinion issues, the losing party can ask for a larger "en banc" panel of Ninth Circuit judges to hear the case. It is even possible that the case could be heard by the entire Ninth Circuit. It is entirely possible for a few years to elapse before the case could get to the Supreme Court. By then, public opinion could shift more firmly toward gay marriage, and it is possible that such an emerging social consensus could influence Justice Kennedy toward striking down Proposition 8.

This case already has had more than its share of twists and turns. But for those who want to predict what will happen in the appellate courts, there's really very little to go on so far. Certainly we should not rely on a procedural order containing no written rationale offered by a different set of decisionmakers than the judges who will decide the merits of the appeal.

The military discharged 428 service members last year for violating its "don't ask, don't tell," policy, reports The Washington Post, citing a Palm Center study. According to the newspaper, the study found that the discharges included "disproportionate numbers of women and minorities."

The Post notes:

Women account for 14 percent of Army soldiers but received 48 percent of the Army's "don't ask" discharges in 2009, the study said. Six percent of the Marine Corps is female, but women accounted for 23 percent of its discharges. The Navy discharged only two officers for violating the policy in 2009, and both were Asian. The Army discharged five officers - two were black, one was Asian and two were white, the Palm Center said.

The study also found that the "military continued to fire mission-critical specialists for being gay in fiscal year 2009." The Palm Center study is here.  

The Palm Center's Nathaniel Frank talked with ACSblog about the history of the policy that bars lesbians and gay men from serving openly in the military, following an ACS panel discussion on efforts to repeal the policy. Frank's interview is available here and video of the full panel discussion is here. A Washington-Post-ABC News poll from earlier in the year revealed "majorities across party lines favor" allowing gays to serve openly.

[image via vpickering]

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker refused to indefinitely stay his recent decision that invalidated California's Proposition 8, finding that supporters of the anti-gay marriage measure failed to "adequately explain the basis for their belief that marriages performed absent a stay would suffer from a ‘cloud of uncertainty.'"

On Aug. 3, Judge Walker ruled, "Proposition 8 cannot survive any legal scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Excluding same-sex marriage couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Supporters of Proposition 8 urged Judge Walker to indefinitely stay his decision during the appeals process, while opponents of the anti-gay marriage measure, including the California governor and attorney general, urged Walker to lift the stay on his ruling to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Although Walker refused to permanently stay his initial ruling, he did delay lifting the stay until Aug. 18, permitting supporters of Proposition 8 to appeal his decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. TPM reported that Walker's action gives the Ninth Circuit "time to decide whether to issue its own stay."

In his Aug. 12 order in Perry v. Schwarzenegger Walker expressed doubts as to whether Proposition 8 supporter have standing to appeal his decision. "Proponents chose not to brief the standing issue in connection with their motion to stay, and nothing in the record shows proponents face the kind of injury required for Article 111 standing," Walker wrote.

 

Religious Right activists' arguments that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who issued the recent decision striking California's anti-gay marriage law, Proposition 8, is unfit to hear the case because of his sexual orientation are reminiscent of the arguments challenging "the impartiality of black judges presiding over civil rights cases 30 years ago," writes Professor Sherrilyn A. Ifill for The Root.

Ifill, a law professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, notes that the Family Research Council and the American Family Association have both issued missives arguing that Judge Walker should recuse himself because of some "published reports" that he is gay. "This is an ugly and desperate charge - among the worst one can make against a judge: that he allowed his personal interests to dictate the outcome of a case. It should be answered swiftly and decisively, because the implications of this charge extend far beyond the Prop. 8 case," Ifill says.

Ifill continues:

Rumors about Judge Walker's sexual orientation were well-known to attorneys for the state of California long before the trial concerning Prop. 8. Why, then, didn't the State of California file a motion seeking the recusal of Judge Walker? The simple reason is that Judge Walker's sexual orientation - whether gay or straight - is not an appropriate basis for a recusal motion. In fact, suggestions that Judge Walker's sexual orientation is evidence of bias is the kind of argument that was firmly discredited in a series of cases challenging the impartiality of black judges to decide civil rights cases.

...

In perhaps the most famous of these cases, lawyers representing the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell requested that federal district judge Constance Baker Motley recuse herself from hearing a case brought by women lawyers at the firm who charged discrimination in hiring and promotion. The law firm's motion for recusal was based on Judge Motley's status as a black woman and her professional experience as a former civil rights lawyer. The late Judge Motley is most famously known as the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) lawyer who litigated nearly all of the cases seeking to desegregate universities throughout the South. [The ACS annual moot court competition is named after Motley - the Constance Baker Motley National Moot Court Competition in Constitutional Law.] She represented James Meredith in his contentious and ultimately successful battle for admission to the University of Mississippi. After leaving the LDF, she served at a New York assemblywoman and as borough president of Manhattan.

When the recusal motion was brought against her in 1975 in the law firm case, Motley refused to withdraw from presiding over the case, offering the now classic explanation that "if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds."

Ifill's entire piece is available here. See here for additional information about Judge Walker's decision in the Prop. 8 case.

Dubbing it "the country's largest lawyers' group," The Associated Press notes the American Bar Association's approval of a resolution urging "state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

Stephen P. Younger, president of the New York State Bar Association, which sponsored the marriage equality resolution, told the AP that the vote in favor of the resolution was overwhelming.

The ABA resolution (pdf) states in part:

The states that have decided to allow same-sex couples to marry have done so because of their recognition that the denial of marriage violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian citizens and their understanding that families and children are vulnerable without the protections of marriage. This proposed recommendation will signal the ABA's support for the extension of equal marriage rights to same-sex couples under state, territorial, and tribal law, as consistent with our country's constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, as well as states' strong interest in protecting and fostering the family unit.

Excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry has the practical impact of denying them and their children a host of rights and responsibilities that exist under both state and federal law. State protections automatically extended to married spouses include the ability to make health care decisions for one's spouse, the right to direct the remains of a deceased spouse and inherit from his or her estate absent a will, the security of being able to provide health insurance for one's spouse, and the peace of mind knowing that both adults' relationships with children born to the couple will be protected.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., allow same-sex marriages, other states, such as Maryland, recognize gay marriages from those states.

The ABA's resolution follows on the heels of a federal court judge's invalidation of California's Proposition 8, which stripped lesbians and gay men of the right to wed in the state.

---

By Edward Stein, Vice Dean, Professor of Law, and Director, Program in Family Law, Policy, and Bioethics at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.

---

Judge Vaughan Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger striking down Proposition 8, the California anti-marriage ballot measure from 2008, is a dramatic and sweeping victory for advocates of marriage equality and LGBT rights. The legal theories that undergird the decision, if affirmed on appeal, could radically change the landscape for same-sex marriage across the country. Today's decision is just another step in the long road to resolving the legal issue of same-sex marriage in California and the even longer road to a resolution across the nation. It will likely be a couple of years before the Supreme Court gets a chance to assess Walker's decision, and, for reasons discussed below, the Court may well not hear this case at all.

The Context of Prop 8

The quest for marriage equality for LGBT people in California is a story of successes and setbacks. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the state's marriage law was unconstitutional. After this ruling, thousands of same-sex couples were legally wed in California. In response, opponents of same-sex marriage proposed a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution so as to effectively undercut the ruling of the California Supreme Court. In November 2008, a majority of California voters supported this amendment, known as Prop. 8, thereby preventing additional same-sex couples from marrying in California. In 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8.

Judge Walker's Opinion

The case before Judge Walker, unlike the prior cases related to same-sex marriage in California, was in federal court (the U.S. District Court in San Francisco), and the plaintiffs' arguments were based exclusively on the U.S Constitution. Walker's decision rests on two distinct constitutional theories: (1) that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution and (2) that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. At this level of abstraction, Walker's decision was like the decisions of some state supreme courts-including the California Supreme Court-that have held that prohibition on the legal recognition of same-sex relationships are unconstitutional on both equal protection and due process grounds. Walker's decision, which directly addresses only the legal situation for same-sex couples in California in light of Proposition 8, differs from prior state court decisions ruling in favor of same-sex marriage because it rests solely on the U.S. Constitution.

Patchwork of Recognition and Non-Recognition

If upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which almost certainly wouldn't address this case for at least two years (if it hears an appeal in this case at all), the legal approach taken by Judge Walker would have a dramatic impact across the nation. Currently, there exists a bizarre patchwork of recognition and non-recognition for same-sex relationships across the country. Six states-Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine-and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry. Four other states-New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and California (at least for now)-give legal recognition to same-sex relationships that provide almost all the same benefits and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, but outside of the institution of marriage (New Jersey calls such relationships civil unions, while the other three call them domestic partnerships). In contrast, twenty-eight states have taken the same approach that California did in passing Proposition 8: they have amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court embraces the two arguments at the heart of Judge Walker's decision, this patchwork (which is actually considerably more complicated than the picture I have painted here) will disappear because it would be unconstitutional for any state to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The Role of Justice Kennedy

Of course, predicting what the Supreme Court will do on such a controversial issue is no easy feat. Many commentators assume that Justice Kennedy would be the crucial swing vote. Significantly, Kennedy wrote majority decisions in two landmark gay rights cases - Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. In Romer, the Court struck down a Colorado ballot initiative that amended that state's constitution to prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from passing laws protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Kennedy held that the Colorado amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution because it lacked any rational basis but, rather, was solely based on animus towards gay people. In Lawrence, the Court struck down Texas's sodomy law, which criminalized certain sexual acts between people of the same sex but between people of different sexes. In sweeping language, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the Texas sodomy law violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Lest one be too optimistic, Kennedy, in his opinion in Lawrence, specifically said that the issue in that case was distinct from whether to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships.

Will It Get to the Supreme Court?

Whether this recent California decision will make its way to the Supreme Court depends on what the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit does with the case. The Ninth Circuit could reverse Judge Walker's decision, it could affirm it and accept the legal theories embraced by Walker, or it could uphold the result but on more narrow legal grounds, perhaps related to the specifics of what happened in California. A much narrower ruling by the federal appellate court might lead the Supreme Court to refuse to hear an appeal. What ultimately happens could also depend on the political process in California. If the California voters repeal Proposition 8, as some polls suggest they might, that could moot the question of whether that amendment is constitutional and avoid an appeal of Walker's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, what happens could also relate to what, if anything, happens in the Supreme Court regarding a pair of July 2010 decisions of a federal district court judge in Massachusetts about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), namely Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. DOMA, in part, defines marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. The federal judge in Massachusetts held that Congress, in defining marriage as it did, violated the U.S. Constitution by failing to defer to each state's definition of marriage. The Massachusetts cases, which address quite distinct questions about marriage from the case decided by Judge Walker, may well reach the Supreme Court first and how the Court approaches the DOMA cases may re-shape the political and legal landscape against which this California case is ultimately resolved.

Walker's decision is remarkable in many ways and LGBT rights advocates have much cause for celebration. But the long-term consequences of this decision remain elusive.

 

 

Less than a month after a federal judge ruled that the anti-gay marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was constitutionally suspect, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker provided another victory to proponents of marriage equality when he struck down California's Proposition 8.

"Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," Judge Walker wrote in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. "Excluding same-sex marriage couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Walker's decision spurred widespread praise and discussion. A sampling of comments follows:

SCOTUSBLOG's Lyle Denniston wrote:

In a first step toward a historic Supreme Court test, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down California's ban on marriage for same-sex couples. U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that so-called "Proposition 8" - approved by the state's voters in November 2008 - violated two clauses of the federal Constitution.

...

The judge, in finding a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of legal equality, concluded that California could not justify treating committed couples differently solely because they were of the same sex. He applied the lowest constitutional test - ‘rational basis' - to this differing treatment. He also ruled that Proposition 8 violated rights that are protected by the Due Process Clause.

The National LGBT Bar Association congratulated the American Foundation for Equal Rights and lead attorneys Theodore Olson and David Bois for the "historic victory." The National LGBT Bar Association will conduct a conference call tomorrow, August 5, at 3 p.m., EST to discuss the ruling.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the organization that successfully represented gay couples challenging DOMA in Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al., lauded the Perry decision, saying it "reminds us that the freedom to marry is a long-established right belonging to all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans."

Lambda Legal's Jennifer C. Pizer issued a statement providing legal analysis of Perry and thoughts on the road ahead for proponents of marriage equality. Pizer, the group's National Marriage Project Director, in part, said:

This thorough review of both sides' evidence vindicates the rights of LGBT people not only to marry based on love and commitment, as heterosexuals do, but to be treated equally and fairly by their government more generally. Just as past marriage victories laid the foundation for today's important win, the court's preparation of a detailed record for the Court of Appeals provides a potent tool for other legal cases and the many, ongoing educational campaigns. It doubtless will help more people see that anti-gay discrimination in marriage is destructive and unjustifiable.

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese maintained:

After hearing extensive evidence in support of marriage equality, and essentially no defense of the discrimination wrought by Prop 8, Judge Walker reached the same conclusion we have always known to be true - the Constitution's protections are for all Americans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Executive Director Kate Kendell said:

Today's decision affirms that the law cannot treat people differently based on their sexual orientation and that a majority cannot strip a minority group of its fundamental freedoms at the ballot box. Judge Walker ruled that there truly is no substance to the arguments of those who would deny equality to same-sex couples. This is another landmark victory for same-sex couples and their families who simply want the dignity and security of having the same freedom to marry as others, as well as for all Americans who believe in our nation's bedrock principle of fairness. We are thrilled that the court has upheld the rights of liberty and equality enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Not surprisingly, not all reaction was celebratory. The Family Research Council (FRC), a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, maintained in a statement:

This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

Attachment	Size
highcourt3.JPG	21.83 KB

A federal judge today declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, holding that it is not only a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, but also impermissibly burdens "the exercise of the fundamental right to marry."

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote in the 136-page decision. "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."

The decision continues:

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 the opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then up to the Supreme Court, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The full opinion is available here.