August 4, 2010 | 1:48 pm
A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that 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 opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … 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.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

Interesting that this article doesn't mention that the judge is one of 2 openly gay judges at the Federal level.

It's disappointing that the judge's refusal to recuse himself will cause this foolishness to continue.

Müs:

You don't pay enough attention to the court. The SCotUS keeps deflecting this issue as fast as it gets to Federal Courts. It'll get sent back down first.

CONCLUSION
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 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.

Is that important?

So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?

No one has said anything of the sort.

So, any judge in the US who hears a case on, say First Amendment rights should recuse themselves because they have a personal interest in the right to free speech?

Why should a gay judge need to not be part of the panel on this?

I get where you are going with that, and I think I agree with you on this. Why should a gay judge need to not be part of the panel on this? Hell, you could even make a case for not allowing a straight judge to be able to make an unbiased call on it since they obviously have a vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned.

Why does a straight person have any vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned?

I'm really tired of this being played as a game of technicalities on both sides. I want to see a definitive verdict handed down from the USSC. Just rule the damnable ban unconstitutional and be done with it. I don't like the idea of freedom being based on a precarious technicality, and I don't believe in putting equality in the hands of popular opinion.

Why does a straight person have any vested interest in keeping same sex unions banned?

It is so nice to see that fundamental rights trump popular moral opinion in the State of California.

I'm sorry, what fundamental rights? There are none, and the government of California decided what "rights" existed. You can't argue both sides.

That is best answered with the question.. Why do they have such a desire to prevent gay people from marrying?