Proposition 8 ruling expected tommorrow between 10am and noon Pacific Time

[doktorb]

"Proponents' purported rationales are nothing more than post-hoc justification. While the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit post-hoc rationales they must connect to the classification drawn. Here, the purported state interests fit so poorly with Proposition 8 that they are irrational, as explained....What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there is something 'wrong' with same-sex couples.

"The evidence at trail regarding the campaign to pass Propostion 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the  belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. The campaign heavily relied on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians.

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conculsively that Prop8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.

Prop8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Prop8 prevents California from fufilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriage on an equal basis, the court concludes that Prop8 is unconstitutional"