The stay is primarily to stop couples from getting married asap and then having to deal with those down the road. If the stay was lifted the prop 8 proponants might request a stay directly from the Supreme Court, but i don't think the court would take it up directly. better to stay a ruling that effects millions of people's lives than to have to void marriages later... which i don't think would happen.
The opinion was well written and carefully spelled out.
1) Marriage is both a civil contract recognized by the State and a religious union
2) The State has no interest in directing the religious union and has not and will not mandate any reilgious group perform any union
3) Marriage is a fundamental right established by case law (primarily from the inter racial marriage cases)
4) To deny a group a fundamental right the State must (at least) have a rational basis to treat one group different than another, and that reason must address a compelling governmental interest. [it must pass a stricter test, but if it fails this lesser test the more strict test is moot .
5) The reasons given to treat homosexual unions different than same sex unions are:
a) Religion - which is not a proper argue for the government to consider and was not directly posed to the court
b) Tradition - a litany of case law lays out that tradition alone is not reason enough to treat a group different
c) Procreation - no state has ever mandated procreation as a condition for marriage, no license is revoked due to lack of procreation or an inability to procreate, birth control is legal in marriages, and marriage is not required for procreation. Ergo, it is not a primarily reason for marriage or for the State to hold an interest in marriage.
d) Stable Families - the evidence presented in the Court indicated that homosexual couples have the same stability rate as heterosexual couples. Presumably the divorce rate would be about the same as any other couple. Which, in and of itself, serves only to prove that marriage among heterosexual couples isnt all that sacred...
e) Think of the Children - evidence presented indicates that biological relation has nothing to do with the ability to raise well adjusted children. The most pressing issue to reach that criteria is the presence of a stable family. which would be increased by homosexual marriages. No evidence was presented that indicated homosexual couples would be lesser parents than a heterosexual couple.
f) Fear - the stereotype of homosexuals as criminals and child molesters, or otherwise something to be afraid of was relied upon in the campaign ads of the prop 8 group. The fear of having ones church sued because they refuse to perform gay marriages was used also. No evidence was offered and no evidence exists that indicated that homosexuals pose any greater threat to children or crime in general than anyone else. The judge specifically says that no cause of action exists against religious institutions for not performing any marriage because of gay marriage.
g) seperate but equal - civil unions are good enough, gay people don't need to get married. But seperate is never equal... otherwise you wouldn't have 2 seperate laws making them mutual exclusive forms of union and this fight wouldn't exist.
h) The will of the people - they put it to a vote, and the people voted to ban gay marriage. Simply put: you can't put someone elses rights to a vote.
6) The Court set the criteria relied upon with great detail, and failed the measure even under the weakest standard.
7) The Court carefully weighed the evidence and assigned it value in great detail.
The Court carefully cited the relevant portions of law.
9) The Court determined that the State had no rational basis to treat homosexual couples different than a heterosexual couple.
In my discussions with people and after reading this discussion, I have not heard a legitamate reason. Most reasons given can be stuffed into a catagory specifically addressed in this case. I'd be interested in hearing one that doesn't argue religion, conflict with existing law, and is a legitimate governmental interest.
It appears by all accounts that homosexual marriage actually has the same benefits for society as heterosexual marriage. It results in stable relationships, a family in which to raise children, and a populace that is generally easier to govern (married people move less, get arrested less, keep jobs longer, have more disposable income, etc.). Unless the judge incorrectly cited law, this ruling stands. I'd be hard pressed to see a circuit going another way and this getting to the Supreme Court until the circuit puts a stay in effect and the Court is asked to address it (I'd still guess they refuse it the first time). Once gay marriage is in place for a few years no one will care anymore... why should they?
/disclaimer: I'm not gay, but have many gay friends. I read the full case and agree with the opinion, but personally I was in favor of gay marriage being legalized anyway.
