Judge refuses to dismiss gay marriage ban lawsuit (challenge can proceed)

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

A federal judge in San Francisco has refused to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also signaled Wednesday that the measure's sponsors will need to show that allowing gay couples to wed threatens traditional male-female unions.

Walker said significant questions remain about whether the voter-approved ban discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Before ruling, Walker grilled a lawyer for the measure's backers who asserted that Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered "naturally procreative relationships."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/14/state/n135729D64.DTL&tsp=1

[Initech]

1. Awesome! Stick it to the Talibornagains!

[kestrel91316]

2. FAIL. The judge did NOT dismiss the case challenging Prop 8.

He DENIED the Motion To Dismiss. The case challenging Prop 8 WILL GO TO TRIAL.

[Newsjock]

3. Yes, but LBN requires the actual headline from the source

So I clarified in parentheses.

[kestrel91316]

8. It's the doofus who wrote the headline that gets the fail, lol.

[FreeState]

4. LA Times reporting it now too

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-challenge-to-prop-8.html

Judge refuses to dismiss challenge to Prop. 8
October 14, 2009 | 1:44 pm
A federal judge refused today to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, ruling the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage raised legal and factual issues that required a trial.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, ruling after nearly two hours of arguments in San Francisco, rejected contentions by Proposition 8's proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Walker previously ordered the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose its internal memorandums and communications to gay rights lawyers. The campaign is appealing that order to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on 1st Amendment grounds.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Way to go Judge Walker!

I, too, demand to know how "naturally procreative relationships" would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal!

K&R!

[POAS]

7. Ban marriage between the old and the infertile.

Just in case.....:sarcasm:

[Newsjock]

6. Updated story from AP with important new part

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/14/BAQL1A5N0C.DTL&tsp=1

... Walker said the Supreme Court, in striking down laws against interracial marriage and by allowing prisoners to marry, had defined the right to wed as fundamental without limiting it to certain groups.

[Frank Booth]

10. That's huge.

That's the case right there.

[Vidar]

9. Good for the judge!

[kpete]

11. Judge refuses to toss suit challenging Prop. 8

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Judge refuses to toss suit challenging Prop. 8

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer


(10-14) 14:09 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge refused today to dismiss a lawsuit challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage, setting the stage for the nation's first trial on the constitutionality of a law allowing only opposite-sex couples to wed.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, in a ruling from the bench in San Francisco, said a trial was needed to resolve crucial issues, including whether gays and lesbians are persecuted minorities entitled to judicial protection from discriminatory laws. He has scheduled the trial for January.

Sponsors of Proposition 8, approved by 52 percent of the voters in November, argued that the initiative was clearly constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, which have never recognized a right to marry a person of the same gender.

Plaintiffs in the suit seeking to overturn Prop. 8 - two same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and the city of San Francisco - contend that the measure's real purpose was to strip a historically persecuted minority group of rights held by the majority.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/14/BAQL1A5N0C.DTL&tsp=1

[xchrom]

12. recommend. nt

[onehandle]

13. Weird that there are so few responses to this.

I'll rec this.

[slackmaster]

16. I'm reccing too, but I don't have much to say about it

I don't know the specifics of the challenge and haven't bothered to read up on it.

My instinct is not to be very optimistic about it.

[Divine Discontent]

14. the supreme court had better rule in favor of civilian rights, if I want to wed another same-sex

person, they had better explain how my actions are detrimental to society - which they cannot. I am a taxpayer, I am a Christian, I am a man, and I AM a Gay CITIZEN of the USA. I deserve equal rights, and my fellow citizens will hopefully stand up with me in a mass protest if they rule against us.

This is going to be big!

[MadMaddie]

15. Glad to hear it!

[klebean]

17. k&r, n/t

[robo50]

18. BEST NEWS I have heard in a few weeks......

In other words, why should any group have a constitutional right to deprive others of rights?

That's the way I see this case. Either SOME people have a right to deny others, or some people do not.

I think the answer is pretty clear.

[David Zephyr]

19. This is precisely the right track for the GLBT community. Not the ballot, the courts.

Kudos to the judge and to the legal team behind the challenge.

[saltpoint]

20. Recommended. For some many years those who opposed equality under

the law for same-sex marriage have had the opportunity to present their case, establish their zone of concern, explain why same-sex marriage would be detrimental.

They have failed to make that case.

IMO the reason they have failed to make the case against same-sex marriage is that there IS no case.

I hope the court is guided by a strong and historical fairness.

[Ranting_Wacko]

21. K&R!

[Wounded Bear]

22. K & R.....enthusiastically...

This isn't really about GLBT rights. It is about civil rights. When any person's rights are violated or restricted, mine are.

[winyanstaz]

23. good for him! At last..a real judge doing his duty.

[Orrex]

24. I just don't see the big deal.

I mean, same-sex couples can already attend other people's weddings. Why do they have to have their own?

[Lucky Luciano]

25. ..better put up the sarcasm tag before the humorless arrive! nt

[HughMoran]

26. Good.

K&R