Gay marriage ruling sets stage for likely Supreme Court battle.
In a landmark ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has overturned California’s Prop. 8, which outlawed gay marriage in the state.
“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.”
The case is the first federal challenge to a state ban on same-sex marriage and will likely end up before the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a decision (we’re predicting a 5-4 vote, with Justice Anthony Kennedy coming down on the side of equal marriage rights) that could dramatically change the face of marriage in America.
The “federal strategy” is a risky one for gay marriage proponents, but high-powered lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies (unlikely bedfellows who argued against each other in Bush v. Gore) apparently believe they can convince Kennedy to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Let’s hope so. Here’s the ruling.
Vocalyze
Thanks for the news update–you got this up before the San Francisco Chronicle! But I disagree that it will “dramatically change the face of marriage in America.” That was a scare tactic of the religious right and it is false. It will simply allow everyone to marry the person of their choosing, not just straight people. It forbids the government from treating a gay person differently than a straight person. If that is the dramatic change you mean, then it was a long time coming.
Well said Rob! It’s about time we move closer extending equality to our gay/ lesbian brothers and sisters! America is trailing behind the times on this one…other countries already have marriage equality, yet we’re supposedly the “land of the free,” yet still don’t give gay and lesbian people certain freedoms, like marriage. Equality of LGBT folk shouldn’t even be an issue today, it should be a given!
I think that the marriage law challenge is an issue of religious freedom. Since marriage is a societal and religious practice, it is complicated. By changing the definition of marriage I cannot support the law because I believe it is defined as between a man and a women. California and many states have laws that guarantee equality for all people with civil union laws. So my opinion is that this is a step toward religious intolerance by the secular minded judges, like in Massachusetts and does not represent the majority or citizens views on marriage. I think this judge lead motion is similar to a school district forbidding the wearing of religious clothing as in the case of Islam students not being allowed to wear a habib or head covering, or where an outside judge rules that in an area where the citizens cannot display the 10 commandments or holiday decoration in the town properties or schools. But we can decide to be religiously tolerant, but since it is complicated , when an issue such as this that is a foundation of society, religious/secular marriage is feared, and therefore forced to change or be abandoned.. I also believe is separation of Church organizations and government organizations, but do not support legislation that attempts to force a non religious agenda. So to be a real man, men need to look to be inclusive of all beliefs and not attempt to redefine the beliefs or doctrine or religions. We can be all inclusive. The land of the free is becoming the land of the anti-God.
Re: Craig
This law will not affect the rights of religions to deny marriages within their churches/synagogues/temples.
That means any man who feels the beliefs and doctrine of religions shouldn’t change over time (which is a bit naive, but that’s another conversation) can support a religion that does not conduct homosexual marriages. And the American democratic society at large – which is based on the ideal of personal freedoms to pursue happiness – becomes a bit more genuine to the concept of liberty (even if the moralistic values of the founders would have been tested by this ruling – and the women’s movement – and the civil rights movement).
What I’m trying to say is: the society gets to be genuine to its purported values, and religions are still ultimately free to declare their moralistic perspectives. You get to support a justified law while choosing your own moral perspective within your own life.
I’m a straight man with dozens of gay friends who are committed, loving, upright people. It is silly that I have a right to marry when they don’t… that inferiority and moral judgment is written into law. I’m all for having moral freedom to love or hate the idea of marriage for gays; but I’m also all for their freedom to marry.
So if it’s possible, I support your right to religion and your values; while also supporting the gay population’s right to marriage and constitutional protection.
I hope you can come to a place of both moral and intellectual peace about this subject.