California Prop H8 Overturned Today!

Today, from the U.S. District Court of San Francisco, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's ban on same sex marriage in a 136-page decision. This ban was better known as Proposition 8 and was fiercely contested in the November 2008 presidential election.

While the victory is not yet complete (the legal process takes time), this is a serious blow to Prop 8, and a step toward homosexual couples finally having equal-rights with regard to marriage.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

'Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

As it plainly states in Section 1, a State cannot abridge the rights of citizens, and U.S. Citizens who happen to be gay are still entitled to fair treatment under the law, despite the outdated 'moral' sensibilities of the religious or those who seek to suppress equal-rights for other reasons.

California's infamous Prop 8, aka 'Prop H8' was funded largely by the Mormon church out of Utah and other religious groups, raising nearly 40 million dollars to affect laws in California. It's no surprise that powerful forces representing various religions were once again, on the wrong side of civil rights as they have been throughout history.

Despite the fact that Judge Vaughn Walker was a Bush Sr. appointee, he made the right decision in overturning this unconstitutional ban on equal rights under the law for gay people. Apparently, a Republican-appointed judge can make socially progressive decisions, but more importantly, decisions which remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

This is similar to Bush appointee Judge John E. Jones III's ruling against Creationists yet again trying to force their agenda into public schools (disguised as Intelligent Design), against the expectations of some Bush constituents. Jones decisively ruled against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, in the landmark 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. This was yet another devastating loss for religious idealogues seeking to force their narrow brand of religious interpretation into law, at the expense of science and the American educational system.

There is simply no argument FOR Prop 8, banning same-sex marriage. The ban on same-sex marriage is a clear, unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment.

Here is what Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich had to say about the ruling,

“To address the issues raised by the courts, Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot after Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It is clear that the Judge’s political correctness agenda prevailed at the expense of the will of the people. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Thomas Jefferson warned that radical judicial activism would undermine the will of the people. He said, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.’ Today’s ruling was a direct assault to the over 4.5 million voters in 2000, and the over 7 million who turned out in 2008 to vote on this vital issue.”

What Antonovich is forgetting, is that Jefferson established church-state separation with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the arguments for Prop 8 have been almost entirely religious. There is no good, secular argument for the state to abridge the rights of a U.S. Citizen on the basis of sexual orientation, which isn't even something homosexuals can control any more than heterosexuals can. Since America enjoys church-state separation per the 1st Amendment to the first ever secular Constitution, religion has no weight in matters of law and is easily discarded as irrelevant.

Antonovich also fails to mention that America is not simple 'majority rule', as it once was the 'will of the people' to have slaves or abridge the rights of black Americans with Jim Crow laws in force from 1876 to 1965. It was once the will of the people to suppress women's rights, including the right to vote or even travel freely. It was the will of the majority to suppress the teaching of certain sciences, namely evolution, due to massive religious indoctrination and a majority representation.

Historically, the will of the majority has often been wrong about civil rights issues.

This is why we have three branches of government for checks and balances: the executive, judicial and legislative branch. What we saw in Judge Walker's decision was an upholding of the Constitution through the judicial system in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Issues of civil rights should not be up for popular vote in the first place.

Imagine a law banning black people from marrying white people. Actually, this used to be law and it had majority support, but it's no less unconstitutional than Prop 8.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof'.

Few ideas make a government more fearsome than a commingling of religion and government, where Bronze-age superstition is allowed to affect all Americans as law, and religious ideas about marriage (and funding) have been the driving force behind Prop 8.

Religion, driven in large part by a religious temperance movement, caused the colossal failure known as Prohibition, which only served to make the alcohol trade highly-profitable and replete with organized crime.

We saw how ill-treated women have been due to religious ideas, and this happens today in unreformed Islam where women are routinely abused for nothing other than religious ideas. First, religion might seek to ban gay marriage, and next thing you know, moral police a la Islam are telling you who you can hold hands with, and where. Yes, this really happens in some theocracies around the world (including parts of Utah), and it's a stern reminder why America is a secular nation which does not, and should not, honor religious arguments which attempt to govern the lives of others.

Majority religion in America has interfered directly with science and progress, and has been on the wrong side of nearly every issue in living memory; civil rights (including slavery), women's rights, the rights of non-believers and gay rights, to name a few.

I believe that if any consenting-age citizen can marry, then all consenting-age citizens should necessarily enjoy this privilege. If any citizen can be a domestic partner, then any citizen should enjoy this right. The government has no business discriminating against variant consenting sexual relationships, even if it offends the sensibilities of the majority or the religious.

As a heterosexual male in a domestic-partnership for 12 years, I currently cannot enjoy domestic partner benefits recognized for same-sex partnerships under state law, and which would allow the sharing of health benefits. This is nothing less than unmarried couple discrimination (CA law only allows heterosexual domestic partnerships if one partner is 62 or older).

I don't like the idea of marriage, nor do I want to be railroaded into an unwieldy and legally-cumbersome tradition simply because the law discriminates against the type of consensual relationship I choose to have.

Thank you, Judge Vaughn Walker, for respecting the U.S. Constitution, and congratulations to all my GBLT friends who've made progress attaining equal-rights today.

There is a lot more work to do, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. These legal victories for civil rights and social progress set legal precedence for future victories, so this decision is an important one not to be dismissed simply because the process isn't yet complete.

Civil rights for those outside our immediate identification aren't just progress for others, it's progress for ALL of us.

-dB-