Just read it

[rymenhild]

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction, FF 43. 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. 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. FF 21. 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.

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.

...

Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition. Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

Judge Vaughn Walker, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, pages 112-114

I have nothing to add.

(Except to say that if you enjoy schadenfreude, Judge Walker's comprehensive demolishing of David Blankenhorn's status as self-declared expert, on pages 38-49, is a thing of beauty.)

Edit: Courtesy of the Onion: Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'.

Comments

[sahiya.livejournal.com]

if you enjoy schadenfreude, Judge Walker's comprehensive demolishing of David Blankenhorn's status as self-declared expert, on pages 38-49, is a thing of beauty

Thanks for that rec. It was amazing.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Isn't it? *beams*

[scazon.livejournal.com]

Double thanks. It was fantastic. Literally rolled on the floor laughing; he really did a great job postponing the punch line until the very end.

[pat-trick.livejournal.com]

i can't wait to read the entire thing when i get home.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

It's worth reading.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Tears pouring down my face.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

*clings* I'm pretty shaky myself. Wow.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

(May I repost? In LJ, in FB-note form? Would you prefer credit for the pointer or no?)

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

On LJ, feel free to repost and link here. On FB, you can quote and credit it to my FB if you want, but don't link to LJ.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Right, I wouldn't link to your LJ on FB! Sorry, should have been clearer -- I meant to ask whether or not to tag you if I reposted it there. That was before I saw that you had also posted this on FB -- though, admittedly, on FB you didn't clip this specific segment, which is also the part I would most want to quote in a note or something. Though I did download the full PDF and read through parts of it. Thank you so much. Maybe because I'm not from CA, I don't know (because I did read things like the heartwrenching testimonials before the MA state congress when people were imploring them not to overturn the right to marry), but I don't think it would have occurred to me to do so otherwise.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

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. 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. FF 21. 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.

That's beautiful, there.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

It really is.

[oneechan19.livejournal.com]

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.

Okay, I really really really like this statement.

Thank you, Judge Vaughn Walker.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[sophistry]

I actually cackled and said, "OH SNAP," at the screen when I got to p.128, and Judge Walker's delicious takedown of Prop8-ers' logicfail.

Because of Proposition 8,same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage. FF 53. Domestic partnerships, in which sexual activity is apparently expected, are separate from marriage and thus codify California’s encouragement of non-marital sexual activity. Cal Fam Code §§ 297-299.6. To the extent proponents seek to encourage a norm that sexual activity occur within marriage to ensure that reproduction occur within stable households, Proposition 8 discourages that norm because it requires some sexual activity and child-bearing and child-rearing to occur outside marriage.

Spork on, Judge Walker. Spork on.

[muchabstracted.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad.

[obopolsk.livejournal.com]

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

Yes. Thanks for excerpting this. I hadn't actually had a chance to sit down and read through it yet.

[skygiants]

:DDDDDDDDDDDD

[svalar-unnir.livejournal.com]

This is fantastic. So many great things in that ruling (and wow, the bit on Blankenhorn was fantastic).

[genarti]

Every single quote of Judge Walker's I've read so far has been beautiful. This makes me so happy.

[cursor-mundi.livejournal.com]

Excellent!