The judge found it unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples who sought to wed.

The state measure, known as Proposition 8, was passed by voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriage, although the state offered same-sex civil unions.

Backers of the ban intend to appeal against the judge’s ruling. The case is likely to reach the US Supreme Court.

The measure was passed in a ballot referendum by a vote of 52% to 48%.

Currently, five states and Washington DC allow same-sex nuptials, though many states have enacted bans.

The ruling does not immediately allow California same-sex couples to marry, as US District Judge Vaughn Walker has delayed final entry of his judgement so he can hear arguments on whether to stay the ruling, pending appeal.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quickly welcomed Wednesday’s judgement.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves,” he said in a statement.

“At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, also hailed the ruling.

“Proposition 8 has taken away individual rights and freedoms, and is a stain upon the California Constitution,” she said in a statement.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban vowed to appeal against the ruling.

Randy Thomasson, of the socially conservative group SaveCalifornia.com, described it as a “terrible blow” to voter rights.

“Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,” he told the AFP news agency.

‘Right to choose’

The 2008 ballot measure, known as Proposition 8, amended the California constitution to state that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California”.

Two same-sex couples challenged the measure, saying it violated their right to equal protection under the US constitution.

They said the measure violated gays’ and lesbians’ right to choose whom to marry while allowing it to heterosexuals.

Supporters of the ban said it affirmed the will of California voters to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and argued the state had an interest in promoting procreation within marriage.

In his ruling, Judge Walker permanently forbade enforcement of the same-sex marriage ban.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage licence,” he wrote.

“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.

“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.”

Taken from the BBC article of the same name.

Chief Commissioner Bob Collins commented,

“When Belfast’s first “Pride” parade was held twenty years ago people who were lesbian, gay or bisexual had no legal protection against discrimination in any sphere of their life. It was only in 2003 that equality legislation was introduced to protect them from unfair treatment at work, in training and in further education and not until 2006 that this was extended to the provision of goods, facilities and services.”

“The law now requires that gay, lesbian and bisexual people are afforded the equality of treatment, and the respect, due to every human being. We cannot claim to respect people’s dignity while tolerating discrimination against them and it is through the implementation of these laws that we can demonstrate our determination, as a society, to reject prejudice, hostility and unfair treatment of people simply on grounds of their sexual orientation.”

“Some of the typical problems faced by gay, lesbian and bisexual people in their everyday lives are clearly illustrated by the legal cases we supported last year. As with other groups protected by the equality legislation, many of the cases that came up were brought by people who claimed they were subject to unfair treatment or harassment at work.

One case involved a young lesbian woman working as a trainee grounds person, who claimed that she was subject to foul and offensive language, was the butt of sexually explicit jokes and was hit with the bucket of a tractor.  That case was settled, with the employer paying £10,000, apologising to the claimant and agreeing to liaise with the Commission over its policies, practices and procedures.
Another young lesbian woman, working in retail, came to the Commission when she was victimised after complaining to her management about bad language, offensive remarks and a hurtful practical joke carried out in public. That case was also settled, the employer paid £5,000 to the claimant, apologised to her and agreed to liaise with the Commission over its policies, practices and procedures.
A gay man whose manager told him, in front of other staff, to ‘tone down his gayness’ raised a grievance with his employer. Subsequently, when he rather than the manager was moved, he felt that he had been penalised. The company concerned paid the man £6,000 without admission of liability.
A gay man who complained to police about incidents of homophobic abuse outside his rented accommodation was subsequently given notice to quit by his landlord. In a settlement of the case the landlord apologised and paid him £3,500.”

“Cases like these show that no-one has to put up with insulting or hurtful behaviour because of their sexual orientation, in work or in access to services.” Bob Collins said. “I want to take the opportunity afforded by this week of Pride events to remind lesbian, gay and bisexual people that they have the right to challenge unfair treatment and that they can confidently assert their rights at work and in society.  People who feel they have been discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality can contact our enquiry line on 028 90 890 890 for free and confidential advice.”

1. The Law

The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2003 (the SO Regs 03) make it unlawful for employers and others to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in the areas of employment, vocational training and further and higher education.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006 (the SO Regs 06) extend the protection against discrimination to the provision of goods, facilities and services, the management and disposal of land or premises and the provision of education in schools.

2. Equality Commission legal statistics

In the year ended 31 March 2010, the Equality Commission had 42 enquiries about sexual orientation discrimination, about 1.3% of all enquiries that year.  Of these, almost 60% were to do with the workplace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10673475

A conservative US state senator who has voted against gay rights consistently during his 14 years in government has came ‘out of the closet’ – he is gay!

Republican Roy Ashburn came out during a radio interview in California, for KERN radio, where he said, “I am gay… those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long.”

The 55-year-old divorced father-of-four has been on leave since an arrest last week on suspicion of driving under the influence. He said that his coming out was prompted by rumours that he had visited a gay nightclub before the arrest, which took place in Sacramento on 3 March, and felt he needed to address these rumours. So, I guess that means that the rumours were true :P

He insists that his voting on the gay rights bills reflected the way his constituents wanted him to vote, i.e. on their behalf, rather than him voting on his own “internal conflict”. (Pity he couldn’t make a stand, maybe stick to his own convictions, though I guess we sometimes punish politicians for doing just that as well. Hmm.)

Roy has a record for voting against gay rights measures. Last year, Mr Ashburn opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honour murdered gay rights activist Harvey Milk. He has also voted in the statehouse against efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognise out-of-state gay marriages.

Peace, out! – Matt