Here’s the story from Life Site News.
Excerpt:
A federal judge has ruled that California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is unconstitutional, because it excludes same-sex unions.
Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, declared Proposition 8 had no “rational basis” in a 138-page ruling on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case released Wednesday afternoon.
[…]The judge dismissed the amendment, saying its restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples was “nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.” He also added that it seemed to him proponents of Prop. 8 were defending the amendment on the basis of “moral disapproval,” which he said was “an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians” and enacted in law, “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”
[…]Walker, however, is himself an active homosexual, and some conservative critics of the Prop. 8 case contended that Walker would be too personally invested in the case to deliver an impartial outcome.
[…]Walker also ruled that domestic partnerships did not satisfy the duty on California to let same-sex couples marry each other.
Michelle Malkin reports that pro-marriage activists are appealing:
In court papers filed Tuesday night, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional. The motion indicates that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling if Walker rules against them.
Comments to this post will be strictly filtered in accordance with Obama’s law restricting free speech on this topic.
Related posts
- New study on open relationships in the gay community
- A former lesbian reflects on her past lesbian relationships
- New study shows that same-sex unions are less monogamous than heterosexual unions
- Which family configuration is best for raising children?
- Why do people favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I have discovered that I cannot say anything on my blog about this issue, no matter how reasoned, without having the epithets of bigoted and hateful tossed my way. Do you have to do a lot of culling of published comments, WK?
LikeLike
Actually surprisingly not. When I do get them, I am usually told that mere disagreement exposes them to violence, or I get name calling instead of an argument. The majority who support SSM don’t understand that it is about moral obligations to children. Adults are bigger than children – we need to give up our autonomy to be kind to those who are weaker. And children need a mother and a father who have biological reasons for wanting to stay around and take care of them. Fathers especially need social recognition for the role they play in the family.
LikeLike
Explain this to me, Wintery. Basically what the federal judge has ruled is that this is a federal issue and struck down the state’s right, right? But if I remember correctly, there was a case in Massachusetts recently where the federal judge ruled that there were parts of your Defense of Marriage Act which are unconstitutional, thereby saying it was a state issue and not a federal one. What gives?
On a side note, are you really surprised? Sadly, I am not!
LikeLike
I think they will do whatever it takes – they say whatever will give them a victory.
I am not surprised. Actually Dr. J said the same think to me as you did – she’s not surprised. But my readers need to know what is at stake so I wrote about it.
LikeLike
The judge ruled much, much more. He ruled that marriage cannot be defined as it has for all of human history. He ruled that children are NOT better off with a mother and a father. He ruled that any view that suggests that same-sex couples are immoral is irrational. He ruled that theological concerns have no place in matters of law. He ruled that homosexual behavior must be considered normal — of equal moral value to heterosexual behavior. Oh, he ruled a whole lot.
LikeLike