Eugene Robinson: A judge's mighty arguments for marriage equality

[cal04]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080504766.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The 14th Amendment is a mighty sword, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker used it Wednesday to slice and shred all the specious arguments -- and I mean all of them -- that are used to deny full marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans. Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow.

Walker found that California's Proposition 8, which sought to ban gay marriage in the state, violated not one but two of the amendment's clauses -- those guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law. By deciding the case on constitutional grounds, and by crafting such a detailed and comprehensive ruling, Walker all but guaranteed that the issue will reach the Supreme Court.

It is not irrational for proponents of gay marriage to worry how the high court will finally rule, given its recent record of conservative activism. But Walker's ruling will not be so easy to assail. At trial, the losing side presented a shockingly weak case. By contrast, the plaintiffs' legal team -- led by two superlawyers from opposite ends of the political spectrum, conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies -- offered witnesses and arguments that covered every conceivable base.

(snip)
One decision by one federal judge does not settle the controversy over gay marriage. But Walker's 136-page ruling lays down a formidable marker because it changes the terms of the debate. He frames gay marriage as a question involving the most basic, cherished rights that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. In doing so, he raises the stakes sky-high: Are gays and lesbians full citizens of this country, or are they something less?

Walker stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run.

[midnight]

1. After so many discouraging rulings, this is refreshing.

[xchrom]

2. 'He hit a home run. ' nt

[BeFree]

4. +1

Imagine that... treating everyone equally?

A step forward, finally.

[Booster]

3. We couldn't have asked for a better (and smarter) judge than

Judge Walker. Smart man.

[niyad]

5. I find it interesting that the repukes are trying to repeal the 14th --supposedly over

citizenship. but "equal protection under the law" is what they are really going after--including the basis for judge walker's ruling.

[csziggy]

6. HUrray for Eugene Robinson! He said it so nicely

I was disturbed by the African American minister on one of the pseudo news shows today. I was only half way paying attention at first and when I did start paying attention, I was yelling at him so much I completely missed who he was. The screen said "Rev. Jackson" but it was not Jessie Jackson or anyone I recognized.

He kept going on about the court "thwarting the will of the people" and how the people had voted in California. I was screaming at the TV - didn't that man realized that it was the will of the people in power that kept many of his people in slavery and that once they were freed from slavery kept them from voting and from using their rights? And doesn't he realize that many of the people who object to marriage equality would gladly return many people in this country to effective slavery?

If the right wing succeeds in validating the idea that rights can be voted away, this "grand experiment in democracy" is over and all us ordinary people can just give it up and agree to be slaves.

[elmerdem]

7. I heard him too!

i couldn't believe the irony of his argument, knowing that in several southern states that he may not be a free man today if it were up to "the will of the people".

[misanthrope]

8. Well, that's the thing...

...A lot of people assume that Democratic African-Americans, across the board, are progressive. Aside the fallacy of lumping people in together based on single issues such as superficial appearance, cultural subset or historical stances in the Civil Rights Movement, this is highly problematic.

I can't tell you how many times I've been in discussion with friends who belong to that subset and have ended up rolling my eyes at their bigoted remarks about homosexuals and their attendant stances on gay rights. The factor I've noticed with a lot of those folks is religion. Many of the same churches that provided impetus and organization for civil rights issues regarding race are also helping to spread hatred when the focus is on the civil rights of homosexuals.

I even heard one buddy say to a small klatch of nodding heads that the legalization of gay marriage was wrong because government was dictating behavior, as if telling people they can't marry isn't dictatorial. I just shook my own noggin at their willful blindness and walked away.

It's not a matter of party or race but one of conservatism versus progressivism and religious folks are usually more conservative.

[csziggy]

10. And of course that is why the right wingers are framing it in terms of religion

Claiming that gays are evil and immoral makes it OK to restrict their rights for many people. The other problem is that many today who could easily be affected are too young to remember the worst of the Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s.

Framing the situation as a civil right fight makes a bigger difference. We should push that concept and point out that once one groups rights are up to be voted away, ANY groups right can be voted on.

[WillyT]

9. HUGE K & R !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick: