Aerosmith at Fenway 8.14.10 - Dream On baby!

Proposition 8 Violates the U.S. Constitution

(CNN) -- Defendants and plaintiffs have until Friday to submit responses to a temporary stay that a California judge granted after striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.


Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ruled on Wednesday that California's Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

He however granted a temporary stay, which stops his decision from taking immediate effect.

Supporters of Proposition 8 argued, prior to Walker's ruling, that same-sex marriages would be performed soon after his decision and could be complicated by rulings and appeals farther down the legal road.

The judge's decision striking down the ban handed supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 136-page opinion is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over the proposition, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.

"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 opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.

"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."

Elated supporters of same-sex marriage gathered to celebrate the judge's opinion in the Castro district of San Francisco.
After speeches and songs, they began a march to city hall.

People waved rainbow flags and U.S. flags, and carried signs that read, "We all deserve the freedom to marry," and "Separate is Unequal."

Similar rallies unfolded in cities across California -- including Los Angeles and San Diego.

"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country," said Kristin Perry, a plaintiff.

Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which if appealed would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said their best bet lies with higher courts, and vowed to appeal the federal judge's ruling.

In a national survey, conducted by Gallup in May, 53 percent of respondents said same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law, while 44 percent said they should.

Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests over the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. It passed in California with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."

Dispersants used excessively in Gulf

This was reported about 2 mns ago on Good Morning America. Now its coming back to light as we see it's effects. Here's the GMA video - below, the story from CNN published today.



By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The dispersants were used to break up oil after the April 20 rig explosion
The EPA ordered the oil giant in May to limit surface application of the chemicals
In rare cases, exemptions to use the chemical could be requested

(CNN) -- New documents released by a congressional subcommittee indicate that Coast Guard officials allowed BP to use excessive amounts of chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP used the chemicals to break up oil after the April 20 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion sent millions of gallons of crude gushing into the Gulf.

Despite a federal directive restricting their use, the Coast Guard routinely granted exemptions, said Rep. Edward J. Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

"BP carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it," Markey said in a statement Saturday. "After we discovered how toxic these chemicals really are, they had no business being spread across the Gulf in this manner."

The exemptions granted "were in no way rare," Markey said in a letter to retired Adm. Thad Allen, the former commandant of the Coast Guard who is now overseeing the federal response to the oil spill.

The Coast Guard approved more than 74 exemptions in 48 days, Markey said. In one instance, Coast Guard officials allowed the oil giant to use a larger volume of dispersants than it had applied for, he said.

Dispersants are "a toxic stew of chemicals, oil and gas, with impacts that are not well understood," Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said in the letter to Allen.

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Coast Guard, ordered the oil giant to stop surface application of the chemicals during the oil spill except in rare occasions, according to a House subcommittee on energy and environment.

In rare cases, exemptions had to be requested, documents show.

Markey said the findings are based on an analysis by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

Calls to a BP press office and the Joint Information Center were not immediately returned.

The EPA said in May that it believes the oil giant's total use of dispersants can be reduced by as much as 80 percent. While the dispersants were breaking up much of the oil being spilled into the Gulf, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "we are making environmental tradeoffs" and are "deeply concerned" about potential side effects.

Markey said the subcommittee also found contradictions on how much chemical dispersant was being used. On other occasions, BP used more than the amount approved by the Coast Guard, Markey said in his letter.

The report brings into question the total amount of dispersants used in the Gulf. BP says it has used 1.8 million gallons to break up oil flowing from the Deepwater Horizon's ruptured well.

"The validity of those numbers are now in question," Markey said.