Federal judge declares the institution of marriage to be in violation of the equal protection of the laws

Last August I wrote about the federal suit to overturn California’s Proposition 8 which declares marriage in California to be the union of a man and a woman:

What are the chances of the plaintiffs’ prevailing? My first thought is that, even under the established revolutionary ground rules of modern Constitutional jurisprudence, under which federal courts on their own authority essentially re-wrote large parts of the Constitution to fit their own desires, a federal court is not going to hold that a state constitution’s declaration that marriage is the union of a man and woman violates the equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment. But maybe I’m wrong. Let’s not forget Lawrence v. Texas. If the U.S. Supreme Court could overthrow all sodomy laws in the U.S. on the basis that they violate the mysterious zone of privacy that was invented by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, and that was further expanded into cosmically defined liberty by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would it be that much of a stretch for federal courts to overthrow state laws and constitutional enactments declaring that marriage is the union of a man and woman, on the basis that such measures violate the equal protection of the laws?

Any insanity is possible. But I still think it’s unlikely that the plaintiffs will prevail. There are (un)constitutional bridges too far, even for radical liberal judges.

Well, I was wrong, at least regarding federal district court. Federal judge Vaughn Walker has thrown out Prop. 8 on “equal protection” grounds. The case will now go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court. However, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds Walker and shoots down Prop. 8, that would be the equivalent of the survival of Obamacare: the decisive end of any plausible connection between the historical and constitutional America and America as it now exists. It will henceforth be impossible for any intellectually honest person to think of America as a constitutional system under the rule of law, since America will have become in reality a lawless system under the rule of radical leftist dictators. I still believe it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will go that far and knock down Prop. 8, but obviously I could be wrong.

(Here and here are other entries about the anti-Prop.8 suit.)

- end of initial entry -

August 5

Laura Wood writes at The Thinking Housewife:

THE EFFORT to legalize same-sex marriage achieved another significant victory yesterday with the California federal court ruling striking down Proposition 8. In light of this development, it is time for traditionalists to consider civil disobedience in the realm of marriage.

In short, the State’s role in marriages is tyrannical, forcing couples to participate in an institution that strips them of their property and civil rights in the event of divorce and that may no longer resemble traditional marriage in the most fundamental way. The State is a third party in marriage and it views the marriage contract essentially as a commercial transaction between individuals. Given that marriage has long been defined by the State as a commercial agreement, it makes sense that no one should be excluded from forming such a bond in a way that alters its non-commercial aspects. Two pieces, here and here, explore the idea of couples declining to obtain civil marriage licenses as an act of resistance and self-protection. In the American colonies, no one was required to obtain a state marriage license. This is a return to our historic roots.

August 7

Sophia A. writes:

I wish you would calm down about this. I understand your emotions (this shouldn’t happen) but in life, should doesn’t exist. It is happening, and this is the best thing that could have happened.

Why? Analyze it.

This fast-tracks the issue to the Supreme Court. Previously it was kicking around like a lizard in a sewer. The case will be rubber-stamped in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then go to the Supreme Court.

It is best that it go to the Supremes as soon as possible, before Obama has the opportunity to make it even more left-wing.

I decline to say what will happen after then. I hope that the Supreme Court will word the decision in such a way as NOT to outlaw gay marriage, which will only prolong the mess, but to kick the decisions back to the state legislatures, where they properly belong. State legislatures will then feel freer to outlaw this nonsense, because the public will have been terribly aroused by having crazy laws forced on them by gay elites, now including openly gay judges.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 04, 2010 10:43 PM | Send