In a landmark ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 yesterday, on the grounds that the California ballot initiative was essentially unconstitutional in nature.
In his 136-page ruling, which sent shock waves around the country - and in the sacred environs of the legal system far-and-wide - Walker argued that the State had no legitimate interest in treating gay and lesbian couples differently than their heterosexual counterparts.
Standing alone, "Moral disapproval' - he wrote in his well-thought-out opinion - was not sufficient cause to uphold Proposition 8.
Previous court decisions have established that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale in support, Walker asserted in so many words.
Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he found.
Unlike like other court rulings on the issue of gay marriage that have relied on State Constitutions, Walker's ruling is the first to fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.
Hence, the much-anticipated ruling is expected to worm its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the interim, Judge Walker stayed his ruling until at least Friday - at which point other pressing legal issues ("unfinished business") - might be addressed in respect to the gay marriage ban.
18,000 California couples were married when same-sex unions were legally allowed prior to the ban imposed by Proposition 8 and a voter majority in 2008.
The court may be inclined to make a determination at this time if California same-sex marriages may commence once again now that Proposition 8 has been overturned or remain on hold pending potential appeals.
Judge Walker held extensive hearings - in January of this year - to determine if there was any reasonable basis for excluding gays and lesbians from tying the knot in an official capacity at City Hall alongside their heterosexual neighbours.
During the course of the proceedings, witnesses - who would have preferred to have remained anonymous to avoid retaliation from members of the community-at-large - tearfully asserted that the notion that children of opposite-sex couples fared better - mind, body, and soul - (according to opponents of same-sex marriage) were unsubstantiated, unfounded, and simply not true.
That argument appeared to resonate with the court, since Walker found that testimony by Proposition 8 supporters, failed to support that theory.
"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," Walker wrote.
Andy Pugo, an attorney in support of Prop 8, lamented Walker's findings and noted to all within earshot that the Federal District Court decision amounted to "an invalidation of the votes of 7 million Californians", "violated binding legal precedent", and "short-circuited the democratic process".
Pugo also hissed that it was "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill will and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."
Hogwash!
When common folks went to the polls to vote on Prop 8, they were not keen to the legal issues that Pugo - a trained lawyer - argued came back to haunt them unjustly.
I expect their votes were passionate ones, triggered by their upbringing, religious beliefs, ignorance, and so-forth-and-so-on.
Some no doubt relied on a biblical passage that cautioned that homosexuality was an abomination in the eyes of God.
But, what evidence is there that those were - indeed - the words of the God?
Others joked - "God created "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve" - when they took the position that marriage was reserved exclusively for heterosexuals on the grounds of pro-creation.
How many straight couples are "shacked up" around the State right now without any intention of having children?
And, how many individuals are in constant pursuit of sex, without the thought of marriage or bearing children in mind?
Andy Pugno, nonetheless, has taken the position that the Walker ruling will be overturned on appeal.
In retrospect, it appears that Walker - a male of gay persuasion - handled the legal proceedings wisely.
The lengthy, thorough trial proceedings - for instance - may prove to have been prudent under the circumstances.
Legal experts have underscored in the wake of the ruling - that higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial - although they still could determine that he was wrong on his interpretation of the law.
Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples, and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."
Nonetheless, there was an outcry in some quarters.
Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, the Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.
"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he protested.
"To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he whined.
Since Walker's ruling based on established law is sound, that leaves the issue of morality.
Only God can pass judgment on that!
Amen!
