Gnocchi Time

In Argentina, the 29th of each month is gnocchi night. Everyone in the country eats this potato pasta treat. It has something to do with payday coming at the end of the month. Anyway, here we are at our neighborhood restaurant, "Recolleta," enjoying our monthly fix. It is only 6:30, so the restaurant is empty, and it will stay that way until 10.

IMG00056.jpg

Robert has started looking for his ride home.

Green Barred Woodpecker

We found this guy digging around in our backyard today.

Burrowing Owl

We watched this guy eating bugs at the tennis court last night.

Red Crested Crier

Pink Eye

This morning the Pierce Family is visiting the pediatrician to get some eyedrops to cure Rory's case of pinkeye, which appeared overnight. As usual, Robert is in favor of ignoring the problem and not spending half his day in a waiting room. Mira, whose view usually prevails, is in favor of medical intervention.
By the way, what is "pinkeye?"

Newsprint, Vertical Monopoly, Torture and Babynapping

The Pierce Family does not read Argentine newspapers, but even we know that Cristina Kirchner this week dropped a huge political bomb. She has called for the investigation of the country's only newsprint supplier, which happens to be owned by her political opponents who waste no effort in tearing her down.

The article below tries to explain this twisted mess of a political situation.

As an editorial comment, Robert will say here that although the Argentine and international press conglomerartes, including the Wall Street Journal, as usual, talk of infringement of the freedom of press whenever anyone tries to take their money away, this Argentine political mess is not about a weakening of Argentine free speech or the press generally. Some news groups have made that same point. This is a political feud between two specific factions that control the country's politics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575450160952433980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575450160952433980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>


Argentina Moves to Seize Newsprint Firm
 
By SHANE ROMIG

BUENOS AIRES—Argentina's government intensified a campaign to wrest control of the country's largest newsprint-paper provider on Tuesday, a move top local newspapers called a brazen attack on press freedom.

President Cristina Kirchner said her government will turn to the courts in an effort to manage Papel Prensa SA and investigate human-rights violations, arguing the sale of the company to a group of Argentine newspapers in the mid-1970s was coerced by the then-military dictatorship. Ms. Kirchner said she will also ask Congress to declare the company a "national interest" to guarantee all media access to paper at the same price. In addition, Ms. Kirchner called for a Congressional committee to oversee Papel Prensa and take seats on the company's board.
   
"Whoever controls Papel Prensa, controls the printed word," Ms. Kirchner said, accusing the papers of maintaining a vertical monopoly.

Media companies, however, say the moves are the latest in a growing offensive by Ms. Kirchner to gag the media. Last week, the government revoked the Internet service license for Grupo Clarin SA, the country's largest media group.

The moves are similar to actions by populist governments elsewhere in the region, including Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, which have passed laws that critics say are aimed at muffling an independent media.

In Venezuela, it is illegal to publish news accounts that might be deemed to "denigrate" President Hugo Chávez. While independent newspapers still operate there, Mr. Chávez has effectively silenced or closed nearly all major independent television stations.

The latest media controversy in Argentina stems from the purchase in 1976 of a majority stake in Papel Prensa by Clarin, La Nacion and a third  newspaper, now defunct, from the Graiver family conglomerate. The government had, and maintains, a 28% stake in the paper maker.

At around the same time, the Graiver family was accused of having ties to the Montoneros, a Peronist guerrilla group that was fighting the military dictatorship. Several family members were arrested and tortured by the regime.

Officials from the current administration charge that the sale to Clarin and La Nacion was coerced, based in part on the testimony of the widow of David Graiver, Lidia Papaleo.

The newspapers insist the sale was legitimate, pointing out that family members were illegally arrested five months after the sale. They also say that although Ms. Papaleo has had many chances, she has never before testified about the purported extortion.

Clarin and La Nacion, the country's two leading newspapers, said in a joint statement that both published on their front pages Tuesday, "Controlling the paper (supply) is controlling information, and this is what the government is trying to do through a variety of means.…"

Clarin quoted Elisa Carrio, an opposition lawmaker, as saying the Kirchner government was "pushing the boundary between democracy and authoritarianism."

While the circumstances surrounding the sale remain murky, the Kirchner administration is clearly in a pitched battle with Grupo Clarin, and to a lesser extent La Nacion, which the administration accuses of trying to bring down its government with biased reporting.

The government has literally taken the gloves off. In a widely distributed video, Domestic Commerce Secretary Guillermo Moreno showed up at a recent Papel Prensa board meeting with a pair of boxing gloves, which he placed on a table before thundering, "There'll be no vote here!"

Potentially most threatening to Clarin is the government-sponsored media law approved by Congress last year but now stalled in the courts. The bill aims to break up the dominance of current media outlets by a handful of companies, but critics charge it simply targets Clarin.

The law would prevent cable-service distributors from owning television stations on the same network. Clarin provides cable service and has one of Argentina's leading news channels, TN, and one of its most popular entertainment channels, Canal 13.

Last week, the government revoked the license for Clarin's Internet service provider, Fibertel, giving the company 90 days to wind up operations. Fibertel currently provides broadband service to more than a million customers—about 25% of Argentina's market.

That followed the government takeover of soccer broadcasting rights from a Clarin joint venture last year and fining Clarin's cable-television operator for monopolistic practices.

Also looming are government efforts to force the adopted children of Ernestina Herrera de Noble, the owner of the media conglomerate Clarin, to have genetic testing to determine if they were actually born to parents killed by the military dictatorship more than 30 years ago.

The children—Marcela and Felipe Noble Herrera—have resisted the efforts and are the sole heirs to Herrera de Noble's large fortune.

Any doubt over the government's linking the issues was dispelled by Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, an ardent user of Twitter, in June.

"Media Law, done. Papel Prensa, almost there. Felipe and Marcela's origins, at any moment. Answer to three issues from the dictatorship with Memory, Truth and Justice," Mr. Timerman tweeted.

Robert's Ride

Robert takes the bus to work every morning. This is the D1 line, which is the "differencial" service. It costs 4 pesos, twice as much as the second class version. It's perfect for the 40 minute ride into the office. Air conditioning and a little room to stretch out and type on a laptop. Robert usually splurges on a taxi for the ride home.

Picaflor Cometa

Every morning we see this "highly territorial"  guy outside our breakfast window eating from the spring time flowers. 

Full Day

The weather is warming up here in Cordoba, and we took advantage of it this weekend.  On Saturday, Robert and Mira took a bicycle ride from Barrio Las Carolinas, through Villa Allende into the mountain town of Rio Ceballos.  That pretty much wiped Robert out for the rest of the day.  We had a momentary plan to have dinner with the Acuñas at a restaurant in Mediolaza called Raiz, but we got too tired after a glass of wine out on the back patio.

Sunday was a very full day.  And when I say "full," I mean that Robert's foodbag was stuffed full all day long.  First, Robert was off to the Disco Supermercado, for "facturas," which, if you don't know what that means, is the collection of sweet doughnuts, croissants (here called "media lunas" given their shape) and cream filled pastries that, along with coffee, are breakfast.  Then, Robert and Rory went for a quick fishing trip just a 10 minute drive from the house.  The fishing did not last too long, and was bound to not be successful anyway given that all we had for bait were raisins.  But we did see a cool rooster collection, a cow with a real big cowbell, a puppy, and a big junkpile where Rory found a spoon that he used to dig dirt with other boys in a big pile for about an hour.

Upon return from the fishing trip, Rory and Robert found the asado burning and Alberto cooking up the meat.  It was Parilla time. With lots of wine, potato salad, apple cider and banana caramel pudding for dessert.

Just when we thought it was time for a nap, Diego and Sandra came by with a huge chocolate cake as a gift for us.  Well, we had to eat that.  So, for about  two hours we ate cake and drank Terma and sodas.  By this time, Rory was spinning out of control with a mean sugar rush.  Thanks our new friends Sandra and Diego (fka the "El Hombre de Gas")!

Immediately after cake, we were asked by the neighbors to come over for tea and, err, facturas.  Well, we took 3/4 of a chocolate cake over and sat drinking tea and talking about the neighborhood in bad Spanish. In the background was live music being sung at another neighbor's house.  A pleasant day.

Around sunset time, we spotted a few Chimango Caracaras, a hawk like bird that likes to find its dinner in the wild patch in the ravine behind our house.

Mr Jeremy Fisher

Just like Mr Jeremy!

Bird Sightings

It's Sunday morning and Robert has already made a few new bird sightings.  Here's one we see all the in groups of 20 or so.  The Monk Parakeet.

Incredible Birds

From our breakfast nook window we watch incredible birds. This is a Great Kiskadee. He is great at digging through our garbage and spreading dirty diapers throughout the neighborhood.

School Daze

Or, You Can Quit Your Job and Move 10,000 Miles Away

Looking for Baby Sitters: Foreign Language a Must

Yana Paskova for The New York Times

Yashmin Fernandes, right, hired a bilingual nanny, Elena Alarcón, center, to care for her 1-year-old daughter, Calliope Castro.

By JENNY ANDERSON

Published: August 18, 2010

• • 
    

When Maureen Mazumder enrolled her daughter, Sabrina, in a Spanish singalong class a year ago, she hoped it would be the first step in helping her learn a second language. But the class did not seem to do the trick, so Ms. Mazumder decided to hire a baby sitter, one who would not only care for her daughter but also speak to her exclusively in Spanish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/nyregion/19bilingual.html?hp

Hace Calor!

Robert just got in his taxi to get home after office hours and it's warm in Cordoba! According to the townsfolk, the fire season just started and will not end until the rain starts in December or so. The hot winds will begin soon. It's super dry. The nightly gin and tonic will go down well tonight as Robert watches the sunset alone while Mira is out at choir practice..

Chinandega

We are getting reports that the Mustardseed Schoolhouse Project will break ground during the last week of October in a village in the province of Chinandega, Nicaragua.  Stay tuned for more information.

Brunch

Sunday brunch at the Pierces'.

Perry v. Schwartzenegger

Last week a Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that Proposition 8 --which seeks to alter the California Constitution by defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman-- violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

According to the District Court, failure to allow citizens of California to marry their same sex partners denies those Californians of a fundamental liberty, marriage. It also denies those Californians of equal protection under the law. This denial of liberty and unequal treatment is unconstitutional in this case because there is no rational basis for either. The District Court found that, at trial, the original promoters of Proposition 8 (who were left to defend the proposition after the California Attorney General and Governor both refused to do so) could show absolutely no state interest advanced by the proposition.  Proposition 8 advances only a moral view that same-sex couples are inferior. Moral views cannot be the basis of laws that deprive liberty and equal protection.

This is the first step for a case destined to be heard at the US Supreme Court.  Experts are saying that Judge Vaughn Walker wrote his findings of fact and law with one reader in mind.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, the US Supreme Court's swing vote.

Here's some selections from the court's legal conclusions.

III

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process

and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall]

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719- 720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US

374, 388 (1978).

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right

protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all

individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).

The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental. The question presented here is whether plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right.

To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due

Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted “in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.” Glucksberg, 521 US at 710. Here, because the right to marry is fundamental, the court looks to the evidence presented at trial to determine: (1) the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States; and (2) whether plaintiffs seek to exercise their right to marry or seek to exercise some other right. Id.

Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States. See FF 19, 34-35. Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. FF 20, 34. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. FF 34-35, 37. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37. The state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life. See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun,

J, dissenting).

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381 US at 485-486.

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the quality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

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 anessential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are

consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, FF 52. Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold, 381 US at 486. 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.

* * *

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny. Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319

US 624, 638 (1943).

Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977). Because the government defendants declined to advance such arguments, proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a compelling California interest in Proposition 8.

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny.

Moreover, proponents do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6. Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

EQUAL PROTECTION

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Equal protection is “a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 369 (1886). The guarantee of equal protection coexists, of course, with the reality that most legislation must classify for some purpose or another. See Romer v Evans, 517 US 620, 631 (1996). When a law creates a classification but neither targets a suspect class nor burdens a fundamental right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it as long as it is rationally related to some legitimate government interest. See, for example, Heller v Doe, 509 US 312, 319 320 (1993).

The court defers to legislative (or in this case, popular) judgment if there is at least a debatable question whether the underlying basis for the classification is rational. Minnesota v Clover Leaf Creamery Co, 449 US 456, 464 (1980). Even under the most deferential standard of review, however, the court must “insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained.” Romer, 517 US at 632; Heller, 509 US at 321 (basis for a classification must “find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation”). The court may look to evidence to determine whether the basis for the underlying debate is rational. Plyler v Doe, 457 US 202, 228 (1982) (finding an asserted interest in preserving state resources by prohibiting undocumented children from attending public school to be irrational because “the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc”).

The search for a rational relationship, while quite deferential, “ensure[s] that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.” Romer, 517 US at 633. The classification itself must be related to the purported interest. Plyler, 457 US at 220 (“It is difficult to conceive of a rational basis for penalizing [undocumented children] for their presence within the United States,” despite the state’s interest in

preserving resources.).

Most laws subject to rational basis easily survive equal protection review, because a legitimate reason can nearly always be found for treating different groups in an unequal manner. See Romer, 517 US at 633. Yet, to survive rational basis review, a law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group. United States Department of Agriculture v Moreno, 413 US 528, 534 (1973).

* * * 

PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS

Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. One example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them. But marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed. See Background to Proposition 8 above.

Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition 8, see Doc #605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting oppositesex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.

* * *

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO

OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).

The evidence shows that Proposition 8 was a hard-fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. See Background to Proposition 8 above, FF 17-18, 79-80. The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 US at 571. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot.

California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579.

Proponents’ purported rationales are nothing more than post-hoc justifications. 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 above. What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there is something “wrong” with same-sex couples. See FF 78-80. The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 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. FF 79-80.

The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what those consequences might be).

At trial, proponents’ counsel attempted through crossexamination to show that the campaign wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt; Tr 132:25-133:3 (proponents’ counsel to Katami: “But the fact is that what the Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn’t that a fact, that that’s what they were referring to?”).

The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It’s Already Happened (mother’s expression of horror upon realizing her daughter now knows she can marry a princess).

The testimony of George Chauncey places the Protect Marriage campaign advertisements in historical context as echoing messages from previous campaigns to enact legal measures to disadvantage gays and lesbians. FF 74, 77-80. The Protect Marriage campaign advertisements ensured California voters had these previous fear-inducing messages in mind. FF 80. The evidence at trial shows those fears to be completely unfounded. FF 47-49, 68-73, 76-80.

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to samesex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

More

Courting

Mira out on the court for the third time this week.

Standing Tall

Cutie Kid Videos

Video Del Roadtrip a Nono

Reports Are In

Rory got his first report card this week.  Although no actual grades were given, here's a translation of what Señora Andrea had to say in her description.

"Rory still has difficulty saying goodbye to his parents when they leave him at the nursery school.  But after a short time he joins in playing with his friends, even though he speaks in a different language he takes part very well.  Sometimes observing by himself and other times interacting with them, running and laughing.

With his teacher, he is very affectionate and stays a while near her, understanding some orders in Spanish (for example: sit down, find your backpack, etc.) and does what she asks him.  Although, when he is addressed in English, he responds with more confidence.  

He participates in all the activities of the classroom, doing everything with a lot of enthusiasm.  He enjoys making art, is very detailed in his productions, and works with concentration.  He likes painting and playdough.

During circle time, he watches and listens with attention and does the gestures that accompany the songs.  His favorite song is "La Babosa" ("the snail"). 

He also likes to listen to stories and look at pictures.

He loves to go to the playground, running from one end to the other and exploring everything around him.  At snack time he knows which are his things and puts them away with his teacher's help.  

Rory is a very sweet and affectionate child.

I love you!

Señora Andrea"