Judge Vaughn Walker’s opinion and order striking down California's ban on gay marriage can be found
here.
I'm a big believer in states' rights in this area. I think states should be able to legalize gay marriage within their borders through the legislative or electoral process.
I also think they should be able to regulate and, in some cases, ban gay marriages, just as they can ban marriages between adults and minors and between incestuous couples.
Judge Walker, however, was clearly more interested from the beginning in creating a right that directly benefited himself and others of his bent.
As National Review notes, under Walker's decision:
[In effect, (e)]verything that plaintiffs’ “experts” say is beyond dispute. E.g.: “[T]he evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.” “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” (I would have thought that it’s equally clear that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief” that the laws against murder should protect all persons.)
Judge Walker makes little or no reference to the fact that nearly all of plaintiffs’ “experts” are political activists for gay causes and that many or most are in same-sex relationships. They’re just neutral experts. In the same way that Walker is just a neutral judge.
The case will next go the notoriously left-wing
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, hopefully, thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We can only hope that President Obama hasn't had a chance to add a few more
Elena Kagans to the high court before then.
