Proposition 8 is Declared Unconstitutional

I just finished reading Judge Vaughn's decision striking down California's Proposition 8.  Proposition 8, you will recall, was a 2008 State wide referendum amending California's constitution so as to define marriage as a relationship between one man and woman. Proposition 8, which passed by a 52 to 48 margin, overturned a recent California Supreme Court Decision striking down the State's ban on same sex marriage.

One of the things I am thankful for is the tradition of Courts providing written opinions explaining the facts that came before them and the legal basis/rationale for their ruling. You can read the decision here, but before you do, let me offer a bit of guidance.

Judge Vaughn is the judge of a Federal District Court - which is a "trial" court. That's an entry level court. Trial courts are the courts in which witnesses appear and testimony is given under oath. Appelate courts do not hear testimony or admit new evidence. They review the decisions of trial courts for legal soundness. They confine themselves to arguments about the case, based on the testimony and evidence already introduced.

In this opinion, Judge Vaughn began by providing: (1) an initial description of the case and the purpose of the law suit - i.e. what kind of relief the plaintiffs were seeking; (2) the identities of the parties to the lawsuit, (3) the identity of the witnesses and the substance of the witnesses' testimony; (4) an identification of those witnesses that the Court found credible (and not credible) and an explanation as to why the Court found specific witnesses credible (or not credible).

After this initial discussion, trial courts typically provide what are known as: (5) findings of fact; and (6) conclusions of law. In this opinion, which is over 130 pages long, the vast bulk of the opinion is devoted to quoting and citing to the trial transcript and evidentiary exhibits to support the Court's findings of fact. I recommend that you read (1), (2), (3), (4) carefully, and then, when you get to (5), read the actual findings of fact (they are the numbered paragraphs) and just skim the citations to the record. That will save you a lot of time and energy. Then read (6) very carefully - that is the meat and potatoes of the legal argument.

As you probably have guessed, I think the ruling is spot on. But not because I favor allowing gays to marry. The equal protection and due process rationales Judge Vaughn offered against the ban on same sex marriage, grounded as they were in the evidence presented, are very compelling. It is remarkable how little evidence the Proponents of Proposition 8 introduced in defense of their position, And Judge Walker systematically demolished the arguments they did offer in support of Proposition 8. (The Proponents themselves had to intervene in the suit after California’s highest officials refused to defend Proposition 8).

It is also telling that the Proponents initially fought so hard to keep the trial from being broadcast while it was ongoing, and then fought equally hard to keep the video recordings hidden from public view during the ensuing appeal.

But I'll leave those of you hardy enough to read through the opinion to form your own opinion on the quality of the legal reasoning.

Enjoy yourselves.

By the way, if you refuse to read because you don't want to change your mind, ask yourself how you can expect others to read arguments in favor of your views if you refuse to read arguments in support of theirs?

Joe H.