The PDF is here.
Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interest in childrearing or responsible procreation, for for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”
The court also slapped down, rightly, the claim that Judge Walker ought to have recused himself due to conflict of interest.
(I’ll probably be updating this with further excerpts as the day goes on and I read more of the decision. –Myca)
- California Court upholds Prop. 8 but rules existing same sex marriages stand.
- Supreme Court Rules That Strip-Search of Teen Was Unconstitutional
- Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing To Defend It In Court
- Sixth Circuit Court Rules That Obesity Is Not Covered Under ADA
- New York Court Rules Gays Must Be Allowed To Marry