LAKEPORT, Calif. – A federal judge's Wednesday ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage received strong reactions from people around the state and right here in Lake County.
The one thing both sides seemed to agree on was that the battle is far from over.
US District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker handed down the much-anticipated ruling in which he deemed Proposition 8 unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution, according to the document.
The measure appeared on the California ballot in November 2008, five months after a California Supreme Court ruling decided that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, Proposition 8's official proponents, called Walker's ruling “a disappointment” in a written statement released on the group's Web site. The group indicated it will appeal the federal ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“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,” Pugno said, adding that, based on federal precedent, there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Laurie Billig, president of Lake County Pride, helped lead a rally of Proposition 8 opponents in downtown Lakeport Wednesday evening.
“We're really happy and we'll continue to fight,” said Billig, who married her partner in June, a union that was not validated by the state.
Recognizing the strong feelings on both sides of the issue, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that everyone should understand that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of the decision.
“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves,” he said in a written statement. “At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”
State Board of Equalization Chair Betty T. Yee said Walker's decision “is consistent with fundamental rules of fair taxation, in that tax policy should not prohibit relationships or transactions, but recognize them as they are and simply apply the tax laws to them fairly and equitably.”
A look at the ruling
Two couples seeking to be married were the plaintiffs in the case, which was filed on May 22, 2009, according to court documents.
Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami of Burbank filed the suit, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, alleging that their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution had been violated.
The Constitution's due process clause says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” while the equal protection clause provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Walker's ruling noted, “A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose.”
The ruling said that Proposition 8's proponents presented only one witness who provided no credible evidence to support the adverse effects on marriage that same-sex marriage would allegedly cause, and that the proponents contended that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage.”
The court heard from historians who assessed the institution of marriage and a psychologist who testified about the physical and economic benefits for marriage partners.
During the hearings Hak-Shink William Tam, who helped campaign for Proposition 8, testified about his involvement. Tam is secretary of the America Return to God Prayer Movement, which encouraged people to vote for the measure alleging that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children and that gay marriage would cause the states to fall into Satan's hands.
Walker stated that “the evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8.”
He noted, “An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect.”
Walker continued, “When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”
In his conclusions, Walker noted that both the due process and equal protection challenges to Proposition 8 were “independently meritorious,” as the ballot initiative “both constitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”
The ruling went on to explain that marriage in the United States has retained certain characteristics, including requiring two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship which in turn in the basis for a household. The spouses also must consent to support each other and any dependents.
“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse,” Walker wrote, additionally referencing a Supreme Court decision that recognized choice and privacy as pivotal in marriage relationships, apart from procreation.
He pointed out that race restrictions once were common in most states “but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre,” and that marriage has moved from a male-dominated institution into one that recognizes the two sexes equally.
Reviewing the evidence at trial, Walker looked at the reasons why same-sex marriage hasn't been traditional in the United States, including disapproval of same-sex relationships and no challenge to the restrictions from the vast majority of people who are heterosexuals.
“The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an
institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage,” Walker wrote.
“The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry,” he continued. “Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
He went on to explain that it's irrelevant that the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8, quoting the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision which stated, “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
In addition, Walker didn't find that Proposition 8 could withstand a rational basis review, and said that its proponents did not meet “the heavy burden” of evidence production to support it.
“The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest,” Walker wrote. “Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality,
because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
“Proponents’ argument that tradition prefers opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples equates to the notion that opposite-sex relationships are simply better than same-sex relationships,” he noted. “Tradition alone cannot legitimate this purported interest.”
Local residents react
On Wednesday afternoon, numerous local residents weighed in on the decision on the Lake County News Facebook page, with the sides clearly divided over their beliefs about marriage and the judge's authority versus the initiative process.
Still, despite the passion the debate was evoking, the small rally of about a dozen people near the courthouse museum Wednesday evening didn't encounter any serious opposition, other then some thumbs down gestures, shaking heads and other minor disapproving responses.
“Nothing really bad, no tomatoes,” said Carol Cole-Lewis.
At the same time, they got many honks and gestures of support as they carried signs that said “Liberty and justice for all,” “Gay marriage, yay,” “Equal protection under the constitution” and “Marriage is so … gay.”
Billig said she believes the issue will go to the US Supreme Court.
“But this is definitely history in the making, and this is definitely the farthest it's ever gone,” she said.
While gay men and women wanting to get married can go out of state to do so, their unions won't be recognized when they return home, Billig said.
At the same time, domestic partnership – which Walker's ruling found did not equal marriage – requires $3,000 more in taxes, she explained. If domestic partners travel to a state where there aren't domestic partnership laws, they'll be considered no more than strangers.
She said Proposition 8 resulted in the denial of 1,138 rights to gay and lesbian residents of California.
“That's what Proposition 8 really is,” she said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
