As I’m sure you know, a federal judge has found the horrible Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional as well as horrible. Which is really just another step to the Supreme Court, but the ruling is still pretty thrilling. Because the judge didn’t play softly with this. He makes as compelling a case as you can imagine that a ban on gay marriage makes no sense unless you just hate gay people.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, 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. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
To put this even more starkly, Marc Ambinder lists these facts that are demonstrated by this ruling:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents’ “assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”
11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”
12. “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
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.”
13. “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.”
(Via Andrew Sullivan)
For a little of what they call “balance”, you might also want to check out some conservative, anti-gay-people voices, like NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, who provides this interview with anti-gay-marriage activist Brian Brown. Brown is disappointed, unsurprised, and completely clueless as he whines about his rights being violated and how the proponents of gay marriage are ignoring human nature (!). He also defends his fellow activists for bringing their children to hot-button (and often hot-tempered) rallies. His argument is that his family should be with him because he’s doing this for his family… so let’s hope that none of his children are unfortunate enough to have to come out to this man.
Oh but back on the sunny side of the street, Gizmodo gives us a list of tech companies that have fought Prop 8.