A US judge has overturned California’s ban on homosexual marriage after claiming that it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was passed by voters in a referendum in 2008 which banned homosexual marriage by amending the California constitution to state that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California".
The ruling does not immediately allow homosexuals to marry in California, as US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is himself homosexual, has delayed final entry of his judgement so that he can hear arguments on whether to stay the ruling, pending appeal. The editorial board of The New York Times declared the verdict “an instant landmark in American legal history”.
Supporters of California's homosexual marriage ban have already filed an appeal. The implications of the case go far beyond California. The case is likely to reach the US Supreme Court, which could then create a rule that binds all Americans. Currently a majority of Americans oppose homosexual marriage. The decision serves as a reminder of the power of Federal judges in the United States. A single unelected judge nullified the will of the voters of California as expressed through the electoral process.
Randy Thomasson, of SaveCalifornia.com, described it as a "terrible blow" to voter rights.
"Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California," he told the AFP news agency.
Judge Walker’s decision contains many comments that will alarm those concerned with religious freedoms. His ruling condemned religious objections to homosexual marriage as both harmful and irrational. He also released ‘findings’ within his decision. Amongst the most startling of these are:
“Religious beliefs that homosexual and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm homosexuals and lesbians.”
“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent.”
“Homosexual couples are identical to heterosexual couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
This is arguably the most controversial re-definition of marriage seen in a Federal Court in the United States.
The judge’s full reading can be read here.
Sources: