The Findlaw.Com law commentary of American lawyer M. Dorf (click link above) discusses the very recent order of a US federal court in California invalidating the state's Proposition No. 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage by way of an amendatory proposition in the constitution of that state. The court cited the due process and equal protection clauses of the US federal constitution as its legal bases for the nullification of the said proposition.
Dorf, in his aforecited article, stated, inter alia, thus:
"The Ruling and its Implications Beyond Prop 8
Much of Judge Walker's thorough opinion summarizes the evidence presented at trial and makes factual findings based on that evidence. Some of the evidence and findings relate to matters unique to California. For example, Judge Walker found that the particular advertising campaign that was conducted in support of Prop 8 appealed to ugly stereotypes about gay men and lesbians.
However, the ultimate decision does not rest on circumstances that are in any way California-specific. Judge Walker invalidated Prop 8 on two grounds, both of which would apply in any state that denies same-sex couples the legal ability to marry.
First, he found that the long-recognized federal constitutional right to marry applies to same-sex couples. Although Prop 8's supporters argued that the federal constitutional right had traditionally encompassed only opposite-sex couples, Judge Walker noted that the right has evolved over time, even while retaining its core characteristics. He explained that racial restrictions on marriage were dropped without undermining the institution. So too, traditional marriage gave the husband legal primacy over the wife, but the gender-based aspects of marriage were eliminated without damaging marriage per se. Thus, Judge Walker concluded that permitting same-sex couples to marry would merely be one further evolutionary step, consistent with prior liberalization.
Second, Judge Walker held that denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them the equal protection of the laws. Although he struck down Prop 8 as not even minimally rational, he also made clear that the denial of the right to same-sex marriage should have to survive much more rigorous judicial scrutiny. Prop 8 illicitly discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation, he found.
On the other side of the ledger, Judge Walker found nothing substantial. The core defense offered for Prop 8 was that same-sex marriage somehow undermines opposite-sex marriage. However, Judge Walker concluded that "[p]ermitting 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."
Likewise, Judge Walker found that legal domestic partnerships are an inadequate substitute for marriage. They do not carry the same interstate benefits as marriage and they lack the social meaning that the term "marriage" conveys. Accordingly, if applied nationwide, Judge Walker's decision would grant same-sex couples a right to marry in every state."
Note: Read the court's opinion at https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100804_prop8_decision.pdf&pli=1.
