California’s Proposition 8 overturned – victory for gay marriage, and example of the impact of law school-based policy research

Perhaps everything in the world might be related in some way to climate change.  Perhaps not.  I’m having a hard time seeing how this topic in particular relates to climate change.  But it does relate to our blog, in that the decision illustrates well the importance and relevance of law school-based academic research centers — such as the UCLA Environmental Law Center and Emmett Center and our blog partner, Berkeley Law’s Center on Law, Energy, and the Environment —  to cutting-edge real-world legal developments.

In his opinion overturning Proposition 8 — a voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California — U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker relied heavily on the testimony of Lee Badgett, research director of the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation, about the impacts of Proposition 8 on families and on the state’s economy.  Environmental scholars’ research from UCLA Law and Berkeley Law has found its way into court decisions as well as policy documents too (as just one example, a landmark Federal District Court decision in Vermont, the first to uphold the legality of the California-initiated “Pavley” state automobile greenhouse gas emissions regulations, cited a law review article by my UCLA colleague Ann Carlson).

We’re expecting that our research centers at UCLA Law and U.C. Berkeley will continue to contribute to important decisions affecting public policy.   In the meantime, congratulations are due to Dr. Badgett, to the Williams Institute and its Executive Director Brad Sears, and to the advocates that contributed to this important decision.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Reader Comments

4 Replies to “California’s Proposition 8 overturned – victory for gay marriage, and example of the impact of law school-based policy research”

  1. Hopefully this can impact more states and their decisions and what is oh so obvious and shouldn’t need fundamental research to back it up. Congrats to California on being awesomely progressive in this battle of equality.

  2. I’m shocked that a legal blog would see this as a good thing. I’m all for gay marriage, but how can a constitutional amendment be found unconstitutional? Isn’t this the ultimate case of judicial violation of law?

  3. Shocked? Really? Lawyers are on both sides of this issue. “The ultimate case of judicial violation of law”? Not even sure what that even means, except that you apparently really don’t like the decision.

    A *state* constitutional amendment, or any other state law, may violate the *federal* constitution. If it does, it’s the job of a federal court to say so. Otherwise, no one could prevent a state constitution from, for example, prohibiting interracial marriage, even though that clearly violates the federal constitution’s 14th amendment. You may disagree with Judge Walker’s decision, but there’s certainly nothing novel about the idea that a federal judge may exercise this power.

Comments are closed.

About Sean

Sean B. Hecht is the Co-Executive Director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Evan Frankel Professor of Policy and Practice, and Co-Director o…

READ more