As you’ve probably heard, a federal judge ruled yesterday that California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in California, is in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The case was peculiar on many levels. The California State Attorney General’s office refused to defend the law, which left the defense up to a group of Prop 8 proponents. Those people should have hired better lawyers. The defense called exactly two witnesses, both of whom tried to put forward the notion that gay couples made for worse parents and that therefore gay marriage was detrimental to society. Let us just say that the judge found neither witness to be credible.
Now, going forward, I don’t expect the decision to survive. I just don’t think that the federal judiciary is ready to step in and nullify every “marriage is only between a man and woman” law in the country, even though I think that the pro-gay marriage crowd has the stronger legal case.
But even so, I think it’s important to realize what the decision means–and what it doesn’t mean. For instance, The New York Times editorial on the matter is entitled “Marriage Is A Constitutional Right“. Even though the editorial goes on to give an accurate (as far as I can tell) description of the ruling, the headline is woefully misleading.
Continue reading »
Recent Comments