DRUDGE SIRENS! California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

  gay fist-pump

Judicial dance party!Breaking news, Slate transgendered children! The U.S. District Court in San Francisco has ruled that California is now a tolerant state again. “In a 136-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker sided with two same-sex couples that challenged voter-approved Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state.” You just got served, Mormons! The U.S. District Court is boss. UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BROS. Appeals are expected, and should be similarly fun. [Mercury News]

Share This
 
Related video

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

113 comments

  1. AbstinenceOnly Ed

    man if this case goes to the supreme court what are the odds roberts rears his robes in fury & shouts ‘I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE; I’VE BEEN LIVING A LIE. I’VE BEEN AN OPEN-MINDED CENTRIST THE WHOLE TIME. Also, I love cock.’ *Sigh* a boy can dream.

  2. chascates

    When the gayz and the pot-smokers and the unemployedz come out in November–adios, Whitman & Fiorina! I will enroll in both Oaksterdam University AND the CannAcademy and give discounts to my fellow Wonketter medical marijuana patients.

    With suitable snacks for sale at a moderate price.

  3. OReillysVibrator

    Matt Drudge and Andrew Breitbart are en route to Palo Alto with a carton of eggs as we speak.

  4. loquaciousmusic

    I have tears in my eyes — my college roommate is getting married to his partner in October. I know this won’t affect their inability to get married in their home state, but, dammit, it means a whole hell of a lot nonetheless.

  5. OKLAHOMAjesus?

    Dear Jesus, please protect the great state of Oklahoma from the coming wrath of the one and only God almighty! We know He is a vengeful God who hates the gayz, but please spare our state, which is as Red as the dirt that covers it.

  6. JMP

    Yay now I can move to California and marry my box turtle! Oh and the status of that nice Captain Sulu’s marriage is no longer in doubt.

  7. stew

    Expanding marriage rights acutally strikes me as kinda mean–haven’t gays suffered enough?

  8. loquaciousmusic

    [re=632209]Evan Hurst[/re]: The Prop8 Trial Tracker folks have excerpted some of the ruling. Jesus, check this shit out:

    The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

    Go, Judge Walker!

  9. mumblyjoe

    So this means I can move to California and marry a box turtle now, right? The gay marriage opponents promised me that if gay marriage passed, I would be able to marry my box turtle.

  10. WadISay

    I just hope everybody out there has earthquake, tsunami, mudslide and plague-of-locust insurance.

  11. Bearbloke

    [re=632207]OReillysVibrator[/re]: …and matching solid gold cockrings, inscribed with their self-written marriage vows on the interior…

  12. you didn't ask, but

    Thank fucking Dog. Now we can just wait for the intolerant oldsters to come out/die off and this nation will be its complicated, tolerant grown-up self one day.

    And I wish long life and viagra to the hip, open-minded oldsters (and younger-sters) with oodles of joie de vivre!

  13. MLM

    “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

    Judge Walker is mah hero. Blingee with hearts dancing around Judge Walker plz.

  14. Lionel Hutz Esq.

    Stupid activist judges. Everyone knows that the only good activist judges overturn campaign finance reform and the 14th Amendment.

  15. SayItWithWookies

    What do you call a GHW Bush appointee who, on the strict constructionist grounds that the Constitution does not explicitly restrict who can marry whom and that there should be minimal government interference in citizens’ private lives overturns a gay marriage ban?

    I have a feeling we’re about to find out…

  16. Joshua Norton

    Let me know when they make it mandatory.

    How much do you want to bet the frothers are going to make a big whoop-de-do because Walker was recently reported as being gay himself?

  17. widestanceromancer

    The entire state of Utah has been declared a federal disaster area tonight, due to millions of ass-blasted magic underwear.

  18. Bearbloke

    [re=632235]SayItWithWookies[/re]:

    Wonketteer Question: “What do you call a GHW Bush appointee who, on the strict constructionist grounds that the Constitution does not explicitly restrict who can marry whom and that there should be minimal government interference in citizens’ private lives overturns a gay marriage ban?

    GOP Answer: FAGGOT!

  19. imissopus

    I’m going to celebrate by gay-marrying one of the feral cats in my neighborhood. That is what this means, right?

  20. V572625694

    [re=632235]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Well, Fox has already “outed” him. No fair! He’s a homo! He should’ve recused!

    Would they have asked a straight judge to do the same thing?

    Maybe we could appoint Tiresias to the bench.

  21. Extemporanus

    [re=632208]Johnny Zhivago[/re]: HOORAY FOR STABLE MARRIAGES!

    [re=632225]mumblyjoe[/re]: Haha, “Box Turtle” is what I nicknamed my penis!

    “Ya hear that little guy? Looks like you’re gettin’ married!”

  22. Bearbloke

    [re=632254]Lionel Hutz Esq.[/re]: But Levi & Todd have quietly slipped off on a ‘fishing trip’ in the California Sierra Nevada…

  23. notreallyhelping

    “…fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” That one’s gotta hurt, wingnuts. Heh.

  24. SayItWithWookies

    [re=632248]V572625694[/re]: This is what happens when gays aren’t forced to publicly identify themselves — like with pink triangles stitched to their sleeves and such.

  25. SFinDC

    From Dave Weigel’s twitter: “Well, I’m off to get married to 3 cousins and a dog in Fresno. Y’all have a good week.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    No.

  26. problemwithcaring

    The only bad part is that we are a full five months away from hearing what the next potential Miss America thinks about this.

  27. mumblyjoe

    So, no, but seriously for a second:

    IANAL (maybe an appropriate acronym for the occasion), but correct me if I’m wrong: presumably, the next step now is appeal, and also, I’m pretty sure that 9th Circuit decision are binding on the 9th Circuit’s lower courts. So, if the anti-gay people do appeal, and lose, does that mean the 9th Circuit might overturn bans in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada? Because that particular scenario would be super-duper sweet.

    Of course, after that happens, there would be another appeal and the the Supremes will probably rule 5-4 in favor of stoning all gays to death, but in the meantime.

    [re=632247]imissopus[/re]: COME UP WITH YOUR OWN JOKES D-:<

  28. weejee

    [re=632274]mumblyjoe[/re]: Teh key will be when Trent Lottaluvin and Newtie the Kewtie book their airline tickets to SFO, their room at the Inn on Castro, and the Castro Theater for their nuptials.

  29. steverino247

    To my LGBT friends, I’m sorry you had to go through all that bullshit. I hope this ends well for you all.

    To my LDS friends, I’m sorry you’re associated with a group that thinks discrimination should be the law of some other state they can’t directly control.

    To NOM, the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS, may you realize your true sexuality soon, because the rest of us are tired of your bitchy attitudes.

    To everyone else, TRUCKNUTZ, BABY!

  30. Neilist

    [re=632235]SayItWithWookies[/re]:
    [re=632243]Bearbloke[/re]: “What do you call a GHW Bush appointee who, on the strict constructionist grounds that the Constitution does not explicitly restrict who can marry whom and that there should be minimal government interference in citizens’ private lives overturns a gay marriage ban?

    Not to put too fine an edge on it: Judge Walker is a “faggot,” actually. Log Cabin Republican, etc.

    Good judge, though. It will be interesting to see how the 9th Circuit, and the USSC, deal with the record he developed during the trial.

  31. Neilist

    Actually, and at the risk of tarnishing my ASSHOLE reputation:

    Judge Walker must have known that, at some point, his personal life was going to become public knowledge if he took the Prop. 8 case, regardless of his ultimate ruling.

    That Walker didn’t recuse himself arguably evidences that (1) he had a “hidden agenda”; or (2) has a lot of guts.

    I think it was the latter.

  32. BerkeleyFarm

    [re=632274]mumblyjoe[/re]: I used to wonder how No-Hassle Nevada, so historically laissez-faire about weddings, divorces, and other matters, ever managed to get a gay-marriage ban passed in the first place. I mean, that’s bad for bidniss. We had *quite* the little boomlet during the periods when it was legal (or, in San Francisco’s case, severely local option).

    But then I saw the Mormons and others in action here, and wondered no more.

    And, oh, yeah, h8rs to the right. Right on outta here.

  33. sweetfancymoses

    Woo hoo!! I’m going to marry a sleestak and a wookie! …and we’re all going to have breakfast together in our terry cloth robes!

    It is armageddon!!

  34. steverino247

    [re=632292]Neilist[/re]: You’re right AND you’re still an ASSHOLE. Well, done, sir!

    What do you think the 9th will do with it, given the very careful record set by Judge Walker? Hard to shit on all 136 pages I would think. Unless your name is Scalia. Perhaps Obama will get another appointment opportunity before this hits the USSC.

  35. One Yield Regular

    Ham biscuits!

    (Okay, okay, I totally stole that from Troubledog’s Niki Haley post, I admit it).

    [re=632292]Neilist[/re]: There’s no reason in the world Judge Walker should have recused himself, any more than there is that any straight person should have recused him or herself from the case.

  36. mumblyjoe

    [re=632294]BerkeleyFarm[/re]: Or how about libtardtastic Hawaii? What’s up wit’ that?

  37. Extemporanus

    [re=632297]Bearbloke[/re]: Correction (per [re=632292]his own admission[/re]): Tarnished asshole!

    [re=632253]Wonderman[/re]: Of all the “Man-on-Animal” marriage invitations in this thread, yours is easily the most deserving of an RSVP.

  38. Mad Brahms

    Hahaha, “we’ll just amend our constitution, because making people second class citizens is totally a power delegated to the states!” OOPS SUCK IT CALIFORNIA.

    [re=632226]WadISay[/re]: Don’t forget meteors! There may be a meteor.

    Also, on a serious note, was anyone else bothered a bit by the slate link? Not because kids shouldn’t be allowed to choose their own gender identity – same as everyone. I’ve been reading too much Judith Butler, maybe, but it just feels weird to me to say “oh, little Johnny is feminine, so we should help foster a love of fashion”. It’s less the ideas of gayness that bother me as the ideas of *straightness* reproduced. Ah, fooey.

  39. Neilist

    [re=632305]One Yield Regular[/re]: Back when I worked in the same law firm as Vaugh, he was a very private, dignified guy — albeit with a bit of a twinkle in his eye, and a sense of humor.

    I could easily see him thinking, “As interesting as this case is going to be, it’s not worth the intrusion into my personal life that inevitably will follow.”

    On the other hand, I can equally see him thinking, “Fuck it. Why not?”

    [re=632303]steverino247[/re]: I have to read the decision before I’ll opine on what may happen. I can tell you, however, that factual findings made by the trial court (Judge Walker) usually are very difficult to challenge effectively on appeal. Under something called the “substantial evidence rule,” the trial court’s factual findings stand if there is any admissible evidence in the record that would support the finding.

    Broadly stated, this makes it very difficult for the appellate court (e.g., the USSC) to second-guess any factual findings, regardless of how much the reviewing court may disagree. (This rule is part of the reason that Thurgood Marshall litigated Brown v. Board of Education the way that he did.)

    In contrast, on appeal any questions of law are reviewed de novo, i.e., the appellate court is not bound by the reasoning/conclusions of the lower court.

    The real question/issue/deciding factor will be how the critical points of Walker’s decision are/can be characterized: factual findings vs. legal questions. Admittedly, I have not read the decision, but the part quoted by Loquacious is . . . interesting . . . in terms of appellate review:

    The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

    Some of that may be “factual findings.” But other parts arguably are legal conclusions.

    I can just hear Justice Scalia: “‘Gender’ was ‘never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage’?!? What Nazi Pope was the trial court BLOWING when he came to THAT conclusion?”

    [Yes, yes, I know. "ASSHOLE."]

  40. sati demise

    [re=632294]BerkeleyFarm[/re]: Mormons only like sin if they can make teh monies off of it.
    When they finally see all the sweet, sweet money that gay weddings can generate in Vegas, baby, they will take another look into the hat.
    And discover that Moroni loves teh gay after all.

    This is so great that I, for one, may turn gay.

  41. steverino247

    [re=632325]Neilist[/re]: Very good analysis. Thanks for the information and thoughtful reply. I would hope that the USSC would refuse cert in order to contain the “damage” to the 9th’s area, but it’s hard to say. I’m happy CA refused to defend Prop. 8 and put all the burden on the jerks (almost said, ASSHOLES, but that would be rude) who put that turd on the ballot. Keeps CA’s limited resources from being expended to defend LDS/RCC bigotry.

    Hey, let’s push Neilist for the next USSC appointment! At least the confirmation hearings would be fun.

    Republican Senator: Mr. Neilist, are you an ASSHOLE?

    Neilist: That’s a stupid fucking question, Senator.

    Republican Senator: I’ll take that as an affirmative response…

  42. DemmeFatale

    Dear Mormons,
    You will never be forgiven for the role you have played in passing Prop 8. You have successfully (re)alienated multiple generations for years to come.
    Was it worth it?

    Fuck you,
    Demme Fatale

    P.S. YAY!!!! (Now Fit Guy can marry Headless Guy from Bonobos.)

  43. MarSF

    Somehow I got sucked into the comments section on Yahoo for the AP story on this decision. America is a very horrible place, based on what I read.

  44. PickneyPinchback

    In the decision the judge had lots of great digs aimed at the Prop * wingnuts, like this: “When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.””

    Yeah, but still…

  45. PickneyPinchback

    [re=632328]Dolmance[/re]: I think this now means Matt Drudge can marry George Reckers.

  46. V572625694

    [re=632325]Neilist[/re]: Some NPR deep thinker agrees with you that the Supremes will kick it back to the states. I know you needed that validation.

  47. mcc

    [re=632345]steverino247[/re]: Reuters correspondent Dan Levine says something EXTREMELY interesting on his twitter feed– he points out that the case was being defended not by the state of California or by any government entity, but by Yes On 8 folks acting as Defendant Intervenors. He then suggests that the Yes On 8 folks might not actually have standing to appeal. Since the state of California certainly isn’t going to appeal for them, that would mean that the appeal process just stops there and Walker’s ruling stands, albeit confined to California.

    I am totally unqualified to evaluate if that makes sense or not.

  48. rmjag

    [re=632241]widestanceromancer[/re]: I live near Provo UT , and today we have had , for the first time this year , major lightning , thundering , monsoon-like rains . Honest ! knocked my garbage cans over . This is not a coincidence , it is god saying ” fuck you , who the hell do you people really think you are ” ? to the lds ppl

  49. rmjag

    [re=632355]MarSF[/re]: relax , the commenters are just a bunch of pouty faced roman catholics and their k-mart cousins , the mormons ….

  50. RoscoePColtraine

    You thought the divorce rate in the Bible belt states was high before the gays could marry. It’s probably going to shoot up to 248% now (according to FOX.)

  51. mcc

    [re=632379]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: 248%, does that mean Mormons will be going around granting posthumous divorces to people who have already died?

  52. rmjag

    [re=632371]Dolmance[/re]: Heh , I’d blow the guy just to see his head explode . he couldn’t handle the excitement ……

  53. Mad Brahms

    [re=632373]rmjag[/re]: It’s tragic the two get lumped together, since by the numbers Catholics are much more open to gay marriage than many other religious groups. Actually, maybe “See? You guys are palling around with MORMONS!” might work, though I think most of the liberals have been scared off / suffer in silence under the reign of Pope Palpatine the XVI.

  54. RoscoePColtraine

    [re=632217]queeraselvis v 2.0[/re]: LOL! Think of it like Oprah…”And you get a cock up the ass, and you get a cock up the ass, and YOU and YOU get a cock up the ass!!!”

    To wild, ecstatic applause of course.

    And just where the hell is Prommie? I need me some Prommie humor on this, the greatest day in history.

  55. the problem child

    [re=632325]Neilist[/re]: An officer of the Court. An asshole. But one who believes in the rule of law, and for that, I salute you. We need more assholes like that.

  56. BerkeleyFarm

    [re=632315]mumblyjoe[/re]: Not as familiar with the politics of the Aloha State. I grew up in Sacramento, so Nevada and its remarkably pragmatic attitude towards various things considered “sin” were not far away. Plus, the quickie wedding thing. Nowadays, Vegas “theme” weddings are pretty serious $$$ business. A friend of mine got married on the pirate ship at Treasure Island and she booked well in advance.

  57. rmjag

    [re=632388]Mad Brahms[/re]: pouty faced catholics and mormon . not meaning to imply they represent the majority of either . however the mormons are still trying to prove themselves worthy of the love (hahahahahaha) of the church fathers and will sacrifice anyone to attain it , whereas most catholics don’t give a shit about the pope . he’s like the rich bitch aunt who lives in the big fancy house and nobody can stand her snooty snottiness , like her own shit don’t stink …..they start the party *after* she is dead

  58. sezme

    [re=632379]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: Hell yeah! I’m going to divorce my wife and marry me a real man! Oh wait, I already live in Canada. Never mind, then. Congrats, California!

  59. WriteyWriterton

    [re=632274]mumblyjoe[/re]: You right, mj. Any 9th Circuit decision would bind all district courts within the Circuit. Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, and I’m not even gay!

  60. WriteyWriterton

    The USSCT: 6 catholics and 3 jews (or soon to be, when my et’nic sister Kagan assumes the position). Not a Prod or an LDS or a Muslin or Hindoo or pagan in the bunch.

    This should be interesting, unless the Court denies cert. (assuming a party with standing appeals to the Nine, the Nine affirms or reverses and, again, a par-tay w/ standing gets it over to the Supes).

  61. Gayer Than Thou

    Wouldn’t you know it? Prop. 8 gets overturned on the same day that the bank that’s owned me since I was born calls in its collateral!

  62. Juan Cholo

    [re=632289]Neilist[/re]: From what I’ve heard both sides were aware of the judge’s sexual orientation when he was given the case and neither asked him to recuse himself because he is highly regarded as fair.

  63. Crow T. Robot

    …bet you can’t see the double letter in the sentence above. Because the eye sees what it *expects* to see.

    There. You learned something. I am not dumb.

  64. lulzmonger

    Might be wrong, but I think the REAL turd in the haters’ punchbowl is still yet to come … years from now, when many more states have legalized SSM – & America’s divorce rates begin to drop.

    It won’t take a Cray super-computer to figure out the main cause … & the baaaaawing from the wingnuts will be heard as far away as Uranus.

  65. trondant

    I hate to say it but there are probably only two things keeping this judge alive right now: the wingnutz’ innate fear of San Francisco and the lack of an effective and affordable anal chastity belt – without the latter they dare not go to Gaytown lest they slip and fall on a hard throbbing cock.

    [re=632486]lulzmonger[/re]: We should all keep an ear close to Uranus, then. Or maybe just a lit match, I dunno.

  66. Fake Thomas Jefferson

    I smile to see that America has at last grasped the subtlety of the idea that “All men are created equal.”

  67. mumblyjoe

    [re=632430]BerkeleyFarm[/re]: Fair ’nuff. I did always figure with Nevada that it was really the tension between the impulse/themed marriage industry and the Mormons, with the Mormons winning out on that one.

    Hawaii struck me as an interesting case, though, because a lot of its tourism is also marriage- and honeymoon-related, so the ban presumably hurts them in the pocket-book as well, but it also has a pretty solidly liberal political base, and policies that tend to reflect this, and remarkably little in the way of religious wingnuttery, because most everyone is too busy smoking jays and surfing.

    I mean, the Aloha state is so liberal that even its secessionist movement is Libtarded- instead of being a neoconfederate thing, like every other secessionist movement, it’s a bunch of people who think it’s really shitty that some white businessmen instigated a coup to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and annex it. It would be like if the Texas secessionists were really just mad that we took Texas from Mexico in the first place, and wanted to give it back.

  68. Tar and Feathers

    “…marriage under law is a union of equals…”

    Tell that to my wife! Oy Vey!

  69. youfuckingdorks

    “When the gayz and the pot-smokers and the unemployedz come out in November”…

    Oh, but wait. The pot-smokers will be too stoned, the unemployedz will be too busy looking for work*, and aren’t the gayz in CA-CA-land already “out?”

    Sounds like a rout for the rich white WASP male oppressor class again! Yay us!

    * That WE aren’t providing not only to keep them in their place, but also to cut all those annoying government hand-out programs we don’t like paying for.

Comments are closed.