My Prop 8 Reaction And Round-Up

First and foremost, I think that this was the right decision. Justice won this fight.

I love what Judge Walker said in the Remedies:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
Damn right. [my emphasis]

However, that's not to say that the fight is over -- far from it.

NOM immediately sent out an e-mail to it's supporters vowing to "fight back":
Dear Marriage Supporter,

Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedented judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8.

This is a ruling that not only ignores the clear, legally-enacted will of the people of California, but jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states and threatens to strip millions of Americans of our core civil right to vote for marriage. We will fight back! Details to follow ....

You can read the decision, and follow all the latest coverage at And please join me online today at 7 p.m. (ET), when I’ll check in from our Summer for Marriage bus tour to provide our official video response to the ruling.


Brian S. Brown
Not really all-that-surprising, but I think that calling Judge Walker 'judicially arrogant' is an interesting choice, given that his ruling was based in Constitutional law.

Also worthy of note, is Judge Walker's background. Many critics of his decision are jumping to call him an 'activist judge'. However, as David Boaz points-out (by way of James Joyner):
Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.
So, given that Judge Walker was blocked by the Democrats TWICE, I'd hardly call him a 'liberal'.

The bottom-line is that this fight is not over, but it appears that the pro-marriage equality side has won a significant battle. If you ask me, marriage equality is an inevitability -- but that doesn't mean that there won't be dissenters until the bitter end.

Finally, Nate Silver asks, "Will Gay Marriage, Once Again, Become a Campaign Issue?":
One of the distinct features of the 2010 campaign to date has been a relative lack of discussion around gay marriage. There are a variety of reasons for this -- there are no marriage ballot initiatives before the voters this year, for instance, and the country has a whole host of other, more tangible problems to deal with. But can we expect this to change with Judge Walker's ruling today?
In short: no.

I think that if the country were not clawing it's way out of an economic pit, marriage equality might be a campaign focus. But, given the state of our nation's economy and it's standing in the world, I think that voters are much more concerned with their pocketbook than they are with letting people who are gay get married. There are far more pressing issues facing our country -- and they are/will be the focus going into the elections in November.