Federal judge overturns Calif. ban on gay ‘marriage’

A federal judge Aug. 4 handed down a landmark decision that could impact religious freedom and lead to the overturning of traditional marriage laws in every state, striking down California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that banned gay “marriage” and ruling it violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses.

It is the first ruling of its kind and is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, typically viewed as one of the nation’s most liberal courts. From there, the Supreme Court would be the next stop.

If the nation’s highest court upholds the decision it likely would result in the reversal of constitutional amendments and statutes in 45 states defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Only five states and the District of Columbia currently recognize “marriage” between homosexuals.

The decision overturned what is known as Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that passed by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent in 2008 and defined marriage as between one man and one woman in California. Proposition 8 reversed a ruling by the state’s highest court legalizing gay “marriage.”

It is the second time that courts have overturned California voters on the issue of marriage. The 2008 California Supreme Court decision temporarily legalizing gay “marriage” reversed Proposition 22, an initiative that passed at the ballot in 2000 defining marriage in the traditional sense. 

California is among 29 states to define marriage as between one man and one woman in their state constitutions. Another 16 states define it in state statute.

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Andrew Pugno, an attorney allied with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is fighting in court to uphold Proposition 8, said in a statement. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed — and should be allowed to continue to affirm — a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”  (BP)