In the six years since Massachusetts broke the barrier, there have been an estimated 40,000 legal same-sex marriages in the United States, according to the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. A comparable number of gay Americans have married in other countries, and an additional 84,000 couples may be in civil unions or domestic partnerships, according to the institute.

If Nepal passes its widely advertised marriage-equality law in late 2010, as expected, Australia will be the only inhabited continent without marriage equality.

In that case we will be a fortress holding out against equality — not only in spite of our national tradition as an open and egalitarian land, but in spite of rational thought.

It seems absurd that we would explicitly prevent the strengthening of communities and allow our politicians to cower before a minority opposed to marriage equality. The damage from such social exclusion is not limited to gays and lesbians. It affects their children, their wider families and their ability to take part fully in a productive Australian future.

When we think of the legacy we will leave to future generations, we must think of our families as well as our bank accounts.

Our social capital is part of our wealth, and the strength of our families is the bedrock of future life chances. This can't be separated from the need for marriage equality; the goals are one and the same.

More than 3,000 same-sex couples have been married in South Africa, with about half of those couples including at least one foreigner, the government says. The law permitting same-sex marriage has begun to pave the way for greater tolerance of homosexuality, advocates contend, and the weddings have provided a shot in the arm to companies catering to those tying the knot.

“Apartheid suppressed tolerance, but once that was out of the way our society has moved so fast and most people just go with the flow,” said Mr. Brits, a nondenominational minister.
* * *
And for many foreign gay and lesbian couples, South Africa offers a legal tolerance often denied in their own countries. In 2007, Damon Bolden married his partner at Constitution Hill, the site of an apartheid-era prison that now houses South Africa’s Constitutional Court and several human rights groups. The American couple, who lived in Johannesburg for five years before returning to New York in 2008, married in a ceremony that blended American and African traditions, including jumping the broom, a wedding ritual used by slaves in America, who were forbidden to marry.

“It was an honor to get married in a democracy so young and progressive,” Mr. Bolden said from New York. “If it can happen there, it can happen here.”

I'm surprised no one has commented on the federal judge who ruled California's prop 8 ban as unconstitutional. A huge victory!! Its the first ever federal ruling that overturned a state's ban on gay marriage. It will more than likely end up in the Supreme Court but for now I think its a pretty big victory. So happy for those who have fought so hard for this.

I'm surprised no one has commented on the federal judge who ruled California's prop 8 ban as unconstitutional.

I'm surprised no one has commented on the federal judge who ruled California's prop 8 ban as unconstitutional.

Perhaps it's b/c we've had our hearts broken too many times?

This is just Step 1 of a 4-step process. Step 2 would be victory in the 9th Circuit. Step 3 would be victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. Step 4 would be to prevent a federal amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

The first battle has been won. But the war is far from over.

Thats very true. This is just one battle in a war that is to continue, but in reading the entire ruling statement its going to be hard for the 9th Circuit Court to overturn it.

[T]he argument for upholding California's gay marriage ban has merit — not because the policy is fair or wise (it isn't) but because it represents a reasonable judgment that the people of California are entitled to make.…

Whatever the activists on both sides say, nothing in the Constitution requires the Supreme Court to short-circuit the country's search for a new consensus, either by imposing gay marriage nationwide or by slamming the door on it with an aggressively dismissive ruling. Sometimes the right answer for the courts is to step aside and let politics do its job.

Thanks Debbie Downer.

Thanks Debbie Downer.

Hey, isn't that CC's job? Bitching when things are good, bitching more when things are bad.

Would like to invoke a single iota of positivity from the guy- but I cannot recall anything....

I wrote that if Judge Vaughan Walker is in a committed same-sex relationship – and there is credible evidence that he is – then a question about his impartiality in the Proposition 8 trial arises.


I explained that Judge Walker could potentially benefit from his own ruling, at least if he and his partner harbor an interest in marrying. I concluded by saying, not that Judge Walker was guilty of bias, but by lamenting that the question had not been frankly explored in a timely way.




Then I went out for the evening.




Upon my return late last night I found some unfavorable reactions lying in my Inbox. Some of these correspondents were misinformed; they had relied upon the New York Times' misrepresentation of my remarks and not upon the remarks themselves in marking their target.




There is nothing more that needs to be said about these misfires. There were all sorts of flaws in the reasoning of the other critics – when they deigned to offer reasons at all.





Some simply alleged that my arguments stunk. Some added unimaginative insults.




But even the ad hominem attackers had a point to make. It was basically the same as those who offered some reasons. They all denied (in effect) that there was evidence that Judge Walker was or even could be partial.




Now that the decision in Perry v. Scwarzenegger is in hand, we can conduct a useful experiment to see (up to a point) who is right.




We can now look at Judge Walker's opinion and ask: is this the handiwork of an impartial and open mind on the subject of same-sex marriage?




Or does the opinion rather resemble an ad hoc rationale for conclusions reached by its author – Judge Walker – on other grounds?




You do not have to be a legal expert to conduct this experiment. You can even try it at home. Slog through Judge Walker's 136-page opinion and then ask yourself: why does this document read like the battle report of a search-and-destroy mission?





One would think, for example, that there are some rational bases for saying that marriage is what our society and our law have understood it to be for a few hundred years: the union of a man and a woman. Not in Judge Walker's court.




One might think, too, that some (and perhaps a lot) of what the plaintiffs' "expert" witnesses against traditional marriage would be branded by a fair-minded judge as the fruit of passionate political advocacy, and not dispassionate scholarly analysis? Not in Judge Walker's court.

Read the opinion and you will see that, when it comes to the defense witnesses in favor of Proposition 8, Judge Walker takes no prisoners, gives no quarter, shows no tender mercies.




He portrays those who supported traditional marriage in the Proposition 8 fight as not only wrong. They are wrong in every decisive respect, and utterly so.




But their position is not only utterly wrong. It lacks any basis in reason.




Belief in traditional marriage amounts to harboring a private prejudice; it is a barely concealed desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The traditionalists' "arguments" are not even arguments. They are instead question-begging "tautolog[ies]."




At the end of the day all that Judge Walker can really see in the understanding of marriage that humanity credited as true until a few years ago is this: opposite sex-couples simply feel themselves to be "superior" to same-sex couples. Period. Full stop.




Now, one standard test of impartiality is fairness, and even a certain sympathy, in stating an opponent's position and in explaining the evidence and arguments for it. This is simply what an honest search for the truth entails. Even allowing for the rough-and-tumble of litigation, Judge Walker flunks this test.




On the other hand: Judge Walker credited the plaintiffs' witnesses across the board, and deemed almost everything of consequence that they said to be true.




Their almost flawless performance (as evaluated by Judge Walker) seems to have escaped those sources of error which plagued the defense witnesses – unacknowledged bias and the like.




The plaintiff's witnesses' uncanny accuracy is all the more surprising, for they were not exactly non-partisan technocrats. They are leading scholar-activists in the culture war over same-sex marriage.




Several are conspicuously passionate about the injustice of traditional marriage. Some even contributed money to the anti-Proposition 8 Campaign.




That these witnesses had a shared passionate commitment to same-sex marriage does not mean that their testimony was flawed (although I do think it was flawed, in many important respects).




Their evident partisanship does not even mean that they were unqualified to be expert witnesses. It does mean, however, that an impartial judge would be keen to subject their testimony to searching critical evaluation, lest their "private morality" (to use Judge Walker's description of the traditionalists' beliefs about the nature of marriage) color their public testimony. On my reading of Wednesday's opinion, Judge Walker flunks this test too.




Judge Walker's opinion in Perry v. Scwarzenegger shows that he uncritically accepted what the plaintiffs' witnesses said and unwarrantedly maligned what the defendant's witnesses said.




It strongly suggests that he was not an impartial arbiter of that trial.




It does not tell us why.

I don't believe he was biased because he's gay, although that could or could not be true. His bias would come from the fact that he has a direct interest in striking down the law.

But we all have a vested interest in protecting the rights of others. Just because we incidentally protect our own right doesn't seem like sufficient reason to doubt our sincerity, or legitimacy.

It's pointless to try and reason with Crew Chief, his mind is closed to the possibility that there might be another way of seeing things.

It's pointless to try and reason with Crew Chief, his mind is closed to the possibility that there might be another way of seeing things.

.
.
.
I wish the right would just admit that they only want equal rights to apply to wealthy straight white men. Then maybe we could really tackle the issues of the day by talking about what's really at stake.

All in all a great victory for the redefinition of marriage. How long before the men who want multiple wives start getting their harems together?

If this is what you think about the right, globally, sweepingly, without any qualification, then you would seem to be an appropriate pot.

Obviously you have never actually talked with anyone on the right politically. Talking does not equal listening to sound bites of Rush/Beck/Palin and then talking to only those who already think like you. Because not everyone on the right politically is opposed to this. And not everyone on the right is a wealthy straight white man, or wants only equal rights for such. Some actually have beliefs and convictions that motivate them. When you can't distinguish between reasonable people who hold different points of view and demagogues, then you don't actually help get us to where we could really tackle the issues of the day.

Just saying.

I have just never bought into those with power dictating what everyone else should do.

Well, that's what liberals practice. They restrict First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, et. al. They ban certain types of foods, prohibit certain types of behaviors, etc., all because they demand people live a certain way, their "enlightened" way.

Well, that's what liberals practice. They restrict First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, et. al. They ban certain types of foods, prohibit certain types of behaviors, etc., all because they demand people live a certain way, their "enlightened" way.

Well, that's what liberals practice. They restrict First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, et. al. They ban certain types of foods, prohibit certain types of behaviors, etc., all because they demand people live a certain way, their "enlightened" way.

...but in reading the entire ruling statement its going to be hard for the 9th Circuit Court to overturn it.

Is Crew Chief a plant, some homophobe whose raison d'etre is opposing gay people & who has enough free time to consistently post gay-negative tripe on gay internet boards? Or is he some sad, self-loathing gay man?

Thank you for proving one of my points about Liberals, that they're intolerant bigots. When a fellow gay person dares to oppose an absurd ruling by a biased judge, said pay person is branded a homophobe, a right-winger, a Michael Steele (at least I spelled it right, contrary to those Kool-Aid drinkers here) look-a-like, etc. After all, how dare someone who's gay not toe the leftists' company line?!? How dare a gay person not goose step with the rest of us?!?

I ask: who are the real "Nazis" (yet another term labeled against us independent-minded gays)? Yup, the liberal ones who attempt at all costs to shut down debate with those with whom they disagree, who desire to disallow the opinions of those with whom they disagree to see the light of day.

Admittedly, it doesn't really bother me. As an umpire, I'm used to people disagreeing with my opinions, especially because such people are simply ignorant of reality.

An editorial in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle sums up Judge Walker's weird ruling well.

Well, that's what liberals practice. They restrict First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, et. al. They ban certain types of foods, prohibit certain types of behaviors, etc., all because they demand people live a certain way, their "enlightened" way.

An editorial in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle sums up Judge Walker's weird ruling well.

Crew Chief: I agree with you that liberals can be can (and very often are) just as self-righteous, if not more so, than other political groups. So I'm glad you are not simply another sheep following the flock.

rather, I'm opposed to it being imposed by judicial fiat, a fiat with absolutely no foundation in the Constitution. Of course, this is common practice among such left-wing judges who come up with a decision that conforms to their personal beliefs then try to write a decision to justify said beliefs.

Fortunately, though, for the most part, the Catholic Church is good at doing this. Other non-Catholic, Christian churches, however, particularly those in the African American community, incessantly parade their ministers and other politicians ("Rev." Jesse Jackson, for example) out to the pulpit to rail against Republicans, conservatives, et. al., and to promote liberal policies; yet the government does nothing to take away their tax exempt status. We all know why, too. Regardless of which party is in power in D.C., there's no way they'll go after the black churches. Double standard indeed.

You are so blind to your biases & prejudices that I feel sorry for you.

The Catholic Church has, outside of the Mormons, been the biggest source of funds for anti-gay initiatives like Prop 8 in Cali & Question 1 in Maine. Bishops in both states have commanded congregants to give BOTH money & time to defeat same-sex marriage, and likewise vote accordingly. They ordered priests to carry out their commands. The pope & numerous others in the Catholic hierarchy constantly & consistently rail against gay people & gay causes, calling us "evil" and "one of the biggest threats to the world."

Seeing as how you fail to see the hypocrisy in your diatribe against black churches, the double standard rests w/ you.

1. You have an erroneous understanding of the role of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. Even someone w/ a basic understanding of U.S. government/civics would know that a couple of the functions of the judiciary is resolve questions of law and to make sure the laws do not conflict with the Constitution.

2. You are definitely not a constitutional scholar. Judge Walker based his decision on the fact that Prop 8 violates both the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Judge Walker was first nominated to the federal bench by Reagan. He was NOT confirmed b/c it was thought that he was too conservative. He was renominated by Bush I & confirmed under his presidency. With those conservative bona fides, only an idiot would call him "left-wing."

Walker was thought to be conservative when, in fact, he was and is a liberal. That's a big difference.

Walker was thought to be conservative when, in fact, he was and is a liberal. That's a big difference.

Marriage is a fundamental right as defined by the Supreme Court in a number of cases....

I've been thinking about how the Supremes, if they get this case, or even the Ninth Circuit might reverse Judge Walker. The part omitted from your comment, SeaCraig, and which I don't think Judge Walker adequately dealt with is that the Court has not recognized a fundamental right for any adult to marry any other adult under all circumstance. The only fundamental right is for a man and a woman to marry. There is no precedent for the right of two same-sex people to marry. While Judge Walker marshalled facts to show why he feels that society has changed sufficiently to justify creating a new fundamental right, he did not really grapple with the long line of Supreme Court cases that talk about the factors considered in establishing fundamental rights (e.g., historical support, a strong agreement among the public that something should be a fundamental right, etc.) I think it very unlikely that Judge Walker's decision will stand--from a practical perspective, it is simply unrealistic to think that the Supreme Court will allow a District Court judge to frame and create a new fundamental right. If the Ninth Circuit reverses, I believe the Supreme Court will decline to take the case. If the Ninth Circuit affirms, I predict that the Supreme Court will reverse in order to allow the states time to develop a consensus on this divisive issue.

Remember Kennedy may be the only one that has to be convinced.