When Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco struck down his state’s ban on gay marriage last week, he did it at a time when the voters of California supported that ban. Walker, though, in analyzing the issue from the perspective of what the state and the law should have to do with it, said in his 136-page ruling that Proposition 8, which upheld the ban, discriminated against same-sex couples.
Judge Walker saw at the base of Proposition 8 tenets of religion and morality, and wrote that the state as a separate entity has “no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.� His decision came as a result of his findings in the case that he heard before his court, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenged the ban. It is noteworthy that Gov. Schwarzenegger praised Walker’s historic decision.
Some use the argument that because California voters supported the ban, it reflects the opinions of the largest portion of the state’s population, and it should stand. However, Walker saw it differently, and if his decision holds, it will resonate across the nation. The appeals to it are expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where a ruling would affect the way the law sees marriage rights in every state, however.
Of course, same-sex marriage is currently legal in Connecticut, as well as in Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont. But when couples who are married in these states move to states that ban same-sex marriage, they lose their rights as legal spouses. The different ways in which states treat this issue can make life very difficult for those affected by the laws, and that includes not only the couples themselves, but also their nuclear and extended families and their friends.
It is, really, a civil rights issue, rather than just a social issue. The government has a responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of all its citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation. There should remain a separation of church and state, and the government should not require those religious groups that do not support same-sex marriage to perform those marriages. Yet neither should the government be telling any of its citizens that they are not entitled to have an open family life, and are not worthy of the respect of their communities and their courts.
The ability to marry and to benefit from the privileges, joys and challenges associated with that action should be available to all consenting adults in the United States. But if the conservative majority now on the U.S. Supreme Court hears this appeal, things may change yet again in Connecticut, and the effects will be felt across the country.
