UPDATE: An amazing video of the crowd outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco as information slowly emerged that Prop 8 had been officially overturned.

Today, history took a turn towards equality and justice. 

Judge Vaughn Walker - who was, by the way, appointed by a Republican (President George H. W. Bush) - handed down a decision that is as thorough as it is historic.  In 138 pages, Judge Walker not only overturned Prop 8's existing ban on same-sex marriage in California - it also laid a detailed factual groundwork for the future of this case as it proceeds to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For a fuller picture, check out the awesome analysis posted over at Towleroad.  But here's the short version. 

Judge Walkers decision is written in two parts: "findings of fact," and "findings of law."  "Findings of fact" lay out the established facts of the cast, the basis upon which the law was applied and decided.  "Findings of law" essentially encompass Judge Walkers interpretation and reasoning of the case itself. 

Why do these things matter so much?  Get this: future courts (whether the 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court) can pretty much retry the case based on their own judgment.  Their findings of law will either uphold Judge Walker's decision, or disagree with it in some way.  However, they base these findings of law on the findings of fact from the lower court.

And THAT is why Judge Walker's 138 page decision may matter even more than his ruling to overturn Prop 8 itself.  So what happens now?
First, there will be a fight over whether to "stay" the decision - meaning will there be a dalay on implementation during the appeals process.  Judge walker already issued an initial stay, but only thru this Friday, August 6.  This gives both sides time to file initial appeals, before a hearing is held to determine whether or not same-sex marriage licenses will remain suspended as the case proceeds.

After that, we're headed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court for an initial appeals ruling - and then the U.S. Supreme Court.  That's where this ultimately gets interesting - as it will set national precedent for all future decisions on same-sex marriage. When the case gets to them, the Supreme Court basically has two options:

Judge Walker's factual findings are breathtaking, if only for their sheer depth. From page 54 to 109, Judge Walker lays out his findings, eviscerates the testimony of anti-marriage equality experts and emphasizes the long list of statements where Prop 8 opponents conceded their factual case. In my years as an appellate litigator, I have never seen a factual record as detailed and well-documented as this. My compliments to Judge Walker and his clerks.

Let me highlight a few striking points here:

1. This case is about civil marriage. Religious belief has no place here.

Right off the bat, Judge Walker found that "[m]arriage in the United States has always been a civil matter" (p. 60, para. 19). The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We watched with dismay, anger and frustration as Prop 8 supporters screamed that marriage equality laws would forces churches and synagogues to consecrate relationships contrary to their liturgy. In one line, Judge Walker does away with this nonsense. What we are dealing with here, he states, is civil marriage. After all, it is the "[c]ivil authorities [who] may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter to leave a civil marriage." (p. 60, para 19). The supremacy of civil marriage takes this conversation out of the church and onto the town square.

2. Marriage is a state of commitment, not a construct in which to have children.

Just as important is Judge Walker's findings about the nature of marriage. "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" (p. 67, para. 34). Absent from this definition, based on extensive citations to evidence offered at trial, is marriage based on procreation or gender-specific roles. A marriage is a partnership based on deeply held emotional love and, as an institution, channels benefits to the married couple, their dependents and society at large. What's more, each of those benefits -- facilitating order, creating a realm of intimacy, creating stable households, providing children with support structures, assigning caregivers, facilitating property ownership and incentivizing healthy behaviors -- exists irrespective of the gender and sexual orientation of the married couple (pp 67-71).

3. Same-sex couples are just like opposite-sex couples.

The entree to these appetizers came later. Judge Walker found that "[s]ame-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love to do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex" (p. 77, para. 48).

And on the seventh day, he rested.

Seriously, though, this profound description of equality is at the heart of the marriage equality movement. Judge Walker cites Prop 8 supporters' admissions at trial that gay partnerships are loving and commitment and that the capacity to commit and love "does not depend on the individual's sexual orientation" (p. 77, para. 48(d)). We are all the same and we all deserve to be treated as such.

4. Domestic partnerships insufficiently recognize those relationships.

Since marriage is not merely an economic union, or a procreative one, for that matter, domestic partnerships that assign certain economic benefits of marriage to nonmarried cohabitants is a separate, unequal and insufficient substitute. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States" (p. 80, para. 52).

"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 relations...hips for what they are: marriages."
 

Judge Vaughn Walker
Wednesday, August 4, 2010