City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera‘s office does a good job of explaining today’s ruling from Judge Walker on the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case.
It’s pretty accessible (compared with the actual ruling itself) and not too long, so why not give it a read?
“S.F.’s arguments, evidence lent key assist to federal ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional
Failure to relate ‘a legitimate state interest’ pivotal to U.S. District Court finding that Prop 8 violates U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment
SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 4, 2010) — A federal court decision that today found Proposition 8 in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses relied on key arguments and evidence presented by City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office about the adverse governmental consequences of the 2008 ballot measure, which eliminated fundamental marriage rights for same-sex partners in California.”
San Francisco’s Happy Warrior, DJH:
“Herrera’s motion to intervene in the case originally brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of two California couples was granted by Judge Walker nearly a year ago. In doing so, the court held that the City and County of San Francisco was the only party in the case — including the Governor and State Attorney General — then willing to represent a public sector interest on the question of the initiative’s validity. At trial, Herrera’s office provided extensive evidence that state and local governments derive societal and economic benefits when same-sex couples enjoy equal marriage rights — and, conversely, that denying such rights inflicts grave harm on lesbians and gay men, which in turn imposes significant costs on government and society. The City’s case made a showing that when governments participate in discrimination against their own citizens, there can be little hope of eradicating private discrimination.
The rest of it, after the jump.