U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has overturned the ban (known as Proposition 8) on gay marriage in California. The suit was filed "by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights."
In reaction, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who argued the case on the plaintiffs' behalf, claimed vindication of "the rights of a minority of our citizens to be treated with decency and respect and equality in our system," and Republican (:~)) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger "also praised the ruling as an important step toward equality and freedom." Opponents of the decision will appeal to the 9th Circuit Court (the court which once ruled that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional).
The judge gave the following reasons for his decision:
1. That Prop 8 "violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing 'to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.'"
[Help for the judge's longing for a rational basis: there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage; that is, it is a physical and metaphysical impossibility.]
2. That "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."
[Well, aren't they? I mean for purposes of marriage?]
And then there was this interesting rationale: "He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school."
[That's right. I don't think my kids should have to learn about it in school. I don't trust the pedagogy.]
"'Proposition 8 played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual,' Walker wrote."
[Yes, I am glad my children turned out hetero. As to homosexuality's ability to imitate an infectious agent, well, you're just making fun of us, aren't you, Judge?]
Of the clichéd sentiments issuing from the judge's pen, I see only one constitutional concern, that of due process and equal protection. All the rest amount to irrelevant stereotyping of what he believes is the defendants' need to stereotype homosexuals. The difference twixt him and me is that, to the degree that a stereotype corresponds to the truth about human nature, that is a good thing, not a bad one.