Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I'd just like to ask why in the "progressive" state of California, it took a court case to set this right ... but in Iowa and 4 eastern seaboard states gay marriage is just as normal as any other kind of marriage. How did Iowa, a state I would expect to represent mid-western conservative values, get it right over California?
I'm just pondering that notion.
|
The question has less to do with the generally progressive mind set of a state like California (which does have, by the way, a major conservative constituency) and more to do with the structure of state government. Unfortunately, it may not be over in Iowa either, as the fanatical bigots of the religious right continue to mount a campaign to force the issue onto the ballot there. It is possible Judge Walker's decision will cool their jets, as having a federal court ruling such as this on the books will make it far more difficult for any such amendment to a state constitution to remain unchallenged. The impact of Walker's decision will no doubt have far reaching effects as other states' statutes and constitutional amendments are challenged, just as California's was in this case.
There are some key elements in Vaughn Walker's ruling which are paramount to genderless marriage moving forward in other states. Here are his findings:
Walker determined a person's "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote."
He posits there is no historical reason for not allowing same-sex couples to marry. States have never required spouses to procreate in order to marry - "indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse," he wrote.
No reliable evidence was presented that gay marriage negatively impacts society or the "institution" of marriage or children. In fact, the voter-imposed ban "makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households," the judge wrote.
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage harkens back to a different era when genders had distinct roles in society and marriage. "That time has passed," Walker wrote.
Judge Walker also concluded the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution had been violated when the voters of California passed the Proposition 8 ban on marriage for gays and lesbians. In his one hundred thirty page ruling, Judge Walker precisely lays out why Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. He left little, if any, room for a court going forward to nullify his decision.
The time really has passed when any group in society can pretend they are somehow superior to any other group in society. The time has come for the people of this country, as a whole, to embrace equal rights for everyone if they wish to continue calling themselves Americans and wish to continue proclaiming liberty and justice for all.