U.S. District Judge sides with the California Supreme Court

A federal judge declared California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that “moral disapproval” was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California “has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions,” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

Octogenarian Phyllis Lyon and her lifelong partner Del Martin were the first same-sex couple to be married in San Franciso City Hall in February 2004 in a private ceremony that opened the floodgates to thousands more weddings and multiple court battles.

Although Martin died four years later, Lyon was able to witness the landmark federal court ruling Wednesday striking down Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in a historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

It is not the end of the fight. You can expect it be appealed up the legal food chain.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

“And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.”

Ultimately, Professor Doug NeJaime at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles said, even the four more liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. “The U.S. Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things,” he said.

Reverend Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California, and a leading supporter of Proposition 8 stated: “Given the present makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court at this time, ’one woman, one man’ will stand,” he said.

Even the LGBT community who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it is not clear or easy. Professor NeJaime said while Judge Walker’s ruling he found “a great opinion,” he was skeptical of the strategy to take a marriage case through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker’s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact.