Prop 8 ruling - 2

Some more excerpts from Judge Walker's landmark ruling:

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians in denying a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

Some very important findings in his opinion are now in official court records and can be cited by other courts. Because his reasoning was so explicit, clear, and strong reasoned, and are rationally derived from weighing the evidence presented by the two sides and examined in court proceedings, they will be influential. Even if the decision is overturned on appeal, they will have historical significance. Among these findings:

"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Again and again, Judge Walker refers to the defense argument, points out that, even when queried, no evidence could be given to back up statements. At one point, when pressed, the defense attorney simply admitted, "I don't know." Another time he asserted that a statement about marriage didn't need to have evidence to prove it. It just is.

No, Judge Walker is saying to the moralists who want to dictate our Constitution according to their beliefs, you can no longer just say, "It just is."

Ralph