Prop. 8 overturned: Why Vaughn Walker ruled against gay-marriage ban

From The Christian Science Monitor

A US district judge in San Francisco on Wednesday overturned California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

The ruling, which will certainly be appealed, follows a closely watched trial on the constitutionality of the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriage that many expect will eventually be decided in the US Supreme Court. A decision there would result in a landmark ruling on one of the most contentious social issues of our time.

Lawyers who defended Proposition 8 have already filed a request with the court to keep the state’s gay marriage ban in place until an appeal can be heard.

The case challenging the proposition, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was brought by two unmarried gay couples who argued the ban violated their right to due process under the law and the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed.

“The evidence shows that Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution, the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples,” Judge Walker wrote in his 130-page decision. “Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because Prop. 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes the Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.”

Response on both sides has been swift and vocal.

“This is a game changer,” says Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “The judge really got it right on every single point.”

“This decision affirms that in America, we don’t treat people differently because of their sexual orientation,” said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, in a statement. “We rejoice at today’s decision but there’s a long road ahead toward establishing true marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

But opponents of same-sex marriage hold the opposite view.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Brian Raum, who represents the official proponents of Proposition 8, in a statement. “Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process.”

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Mr. Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

Legal experts say Wednesday’s decision is significant because it is the first time a federal court has passed judgment on the issue of same-sex marriage. State courts in such places as Massachusetts, California, and New York have come down on both sides of the issue.

Walker rejected the proponents’ rationale, saying that same-sex and opposite-sex couples “are of equal quality.” He added: “The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”

The judge said supporters of the ban were clearly motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuality. “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,” Walker wrote. “The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”

He also rejected arguments that California should proceed slowly in developing policies on gay marriage and that officials should defer to tradition. “Tradition alone,” he said, “cannot form a rational basis for a law.”

Walker wrote that the idea of restricting marriage to one man and one woman was “an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”

Rather than advancing a state interest, the judge said, Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality. “It mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”

The judge said that based on evidence produced at the trial, same-sex marriage would have no impact on society or the institution of marriage. He said the state of California had “no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

Supporters of Proposition 8 had urged Walker, before he announced his ruling on Wednesday, to stay the ruling pending the outcome of appeals. The judge did not take that action. The lawyers are expected to ask the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a stay.