08/09/2010 04:24:08

Walker determined that "Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and

creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation." Same-sex couples, the judge found, are situated

identically to opposite-sex couples regarding their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under
schmuck
California law. He rejected the argument that domestic partnerships are a worthy substitute for marriage, which he called "a
Because the plaintiffs sought to exercise the fundamental right to marry, their claim was subject to strict scrutiny. "The
thomas sabo uhren
imal evidentiary presentation made by proponents [of Prop 8]," the judge said, "does not meet the heavy burden of Walker
then held, "Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause." All classifications


But, Walker noted, strict scrutiny is unnecessary here because Prop 8 fails even if the court uses the "rational basis" test