Ruling gives boost to same-sex marriage

Nadia Chayka and her fiance, Luke Otterstad, both proponents of Proposition 8, hold up a sign outside of the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco on Wednesday. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution. (Associated Press)

Story Topics

• Law_Crime
• Politics
• Social Issues
• Vaughn R. Walker
• Supreme Court

Follow Us On

Facebook

Follow @washtimes

Question of the Day

Do you think the Virginia Senate will pass the 'personhood' measure?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• Other

Login to Vote

View results

National recognition for same-sex marriage took a giant step forward Wednesday when, in a decision that some are comparing to Roe v. Wade, a federal judge overturned Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment on traditional marriage.

In the first federal ruling on a state marriage amendment, one that has the potential to become a Supreme Court case that would strike down every state’s marriage law and make gay marriage a national fact, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Judge Walker said in his 136-page decision. “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.”

He attributed the case against same-sex marriage to personal morality. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” he said.

Even so, California same-sex couples who went to City Hall on Wednesday hoping to be married were disappointed. The judge agreed to postpone the ruling from taking effect until Friday in order to hear arguments on whether a stay should be granted until the conclusion of the appeals process.

As expected, attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com, which gathered the signatures to place Proposition 8 on the ballot, said Wednesday they would appeal the decision.

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process — especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

The state, whose attorney general and governor both back gay marriage, did not bother to defend its law against the federal challenge, leaving the case in the hands of traditional-marriage advocates.

The reaction — both negative and positive — was immediate. More than a dozen parties and victory marches were planned in the San Francisco and Los Angeles neighborhoods alone, and celebrations were planned in other cities across the nation.

In a statement after the ruling, the White House said that President Obama, who said during the 2008 presidential campaign that he opposes gay marriage, “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

Comedian Ellen DeGeneres, who famously came out as gay and has married her partner, said on her Twitter account: “Equality won!”

Advocates of traditional marriage decried the decision, calling it an assault on democracy that could create the same bitter divisions over marriage that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling ignited over abortion.

“This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the Roe v. Wade of same-sex ‘marriage,’ overturning the marriage laws of 45 states,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a statement. “As with abortion, the Supreme Court’s involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It’s time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said “Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy.”

In addition, University of Notre Dame law professor Gerard V. Bradley, who said much of Judge Walker’s actions during the trial were “bizarre,” should have recused himself, because “(as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.” The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have both reported that Judge Walker’s sexuality, though he is not “out,” is an open secret in California gay and legal circles.

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.