our nation has always been about. we read about it in school. our ancestors came to this country in search of it. well, this decision today brings paul and i, and so many others like us, closer to that equality, too. reporter: in his 136-page ruling, chief u.s. district judge vaughn walker said, there is no rational basis for voter-approved proposition 8, which limits marriage to a man and a woman. walker said the evidence shows conclusively, that proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private, moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. and late this afternoon, the attorneys who fought to keep prop 8 in place issued a statement saying, in part, the judge s invalidation of the votes of over 7 million californians violates binding, legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. they are now appealing this landmark ruling to the u.s.
the judge made the conclusion. but the majority of courts and the majority of americans have rejected the idea that same-sex marriage is the civil right. and i think in the end, we will win this. why do you think he s bias? why? i don t know why he s biassed. the reason i think he s biassed is he telegraphed from the beginning in a variety of ways that he wanted to preside over an historic trial. the most blatant example is thedy desire the attempt to skirt the rules televising the trials over the objection of one side of the case and the supreme court had to slap him down. that s one of many rulings in this case that was slanted to one side in our view. the disapproval alone is improper basis on which deny rights to gay men. private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.
up arguing the side the opposite side. the judge made the conclusion. but the majority of courts and the majority of americans have rejected the idea that same-sex marriage is the civil right. and i think in the end, we will win this. why do you think he s bias? why? i don t know why he s biassed. the reason i think he s biassed is he telegraphed from the beginning in a variety of ways that he wanted to preside over an historic trial. the most blatant example is thedy sithe thedy desire the attempt to skirt the rules televising the trials over the objection of one side of the case and the supreme court had to slap him down. that s one of many rulings in this case that was slanted to one side in our view. the disapproval alone is improper basis on which deny rights to gay men. private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.
why do you think he s biassed? and the majority of americans have rejected the idea that same-sex marriage is a civil right. and i think in the end we will win this. why do you think he s biased? the court of law and why do i i don t know why he s biased but the reason i think he s biased is he telegraphed from the beginning in a variety of ways he wanted to preside over a historic trial. the most blatant example was his desire his astettempt to ski federal rules that prevent televising of trials over the objection of one side in this case and the supreme court had to slap him down on that but that was only one of many the judge ruled today slanted to one side in our view. the judge ruled that moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. the evidence shows conclusively proposition 8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. he s essentially saying this