The entirety of David Boies's speech
(1hr. 10min., including Q&A) can be viewed here.
(1hr. 10min., including Q&A) can be viewed here.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
On the 4th of August, 2010 federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act (Proposition 8, originally passed during November, 2008), a law in the state that prohibits same sex couples the right to marry, a fundamental right otherwise enjoyed by opposite sex couples only. Judge Walker ruled on the grounds that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Entire Ruling That Overturned California's Prop 8 | Federal Judge Vaughn Walker (.pdf link 138 pages)
I have to admit, when I read the entire 138 page ruling by Judge Walker, which meticulously and rationally ran through 80 various statements of fact, otherwise all conceivable points supporting the argument that marriage must only be between a man and a woman, and struck each one down, the whole thing sounded amazingly sexy. And not only because it sealed my rights as an American to marry whomever I wanted (at least within the state of California), but in particular because the analysis in the ruling was drop dead gorgeous, brilliant research on the constitutionality of overturning Prop 8 based on constitutional law and rock solid facts and statistics as put forth by expert witnesses, both called by the plaintiffs and as well through cross-examination of the two expert witnesses on the proponents' side.
In the end, the ruling stated that there was absolutely no rationale or grounded reason behind denying marriage to same sex couples and absolutely no evidence supporting the law stating that marriage must only be between a man and a woman. According to Slate.com's Dahlia Lithwick this ruling will be incredibly difficult to argue against, pick apart, and overturn when it reaches the 9th circuit court (the appellate court) and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words it has far reaching implications on our future as a country in terms of guaranteeing equal rights for all of us Americans to marry whomever we want under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The only current regret I have is that I have no one special in my life these days to share this victory with. But who knows? When the U.S. Supreme Court finally rules in our favour as Americans, maybe by then I'll have someone in my life with whom I can finally exchange this most profound and deepest and most beautiful of vows.
In the end, the ruling stated that there was absolutely no rationale or grounded reason behind denying marriage to same sex couples and absolutely no evidence supporting the law stating that marriage must only be between a man and a woman. According to Slate.com's Dahlia Lithwick this ruling will be incredibly difficult to argue against, pick apart, and overturn when it reaches the 9th circuit court (the appellate court) and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words it has far reaching implications on our future as a country in terms of guaranteeing equal rights for all of us Americans to marry whomever we want under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The only current regret I have is that I have no one special in my life these days to share this victory with. But who knows? When the U.S. Supreme Court finally rules in our favour as Americans, maybe by then I'll have someone in my life with whom I can finally exchange this most profound and deepest and most beautiful of vows.
Posts
