Both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment played a role in the decision. In our discussion of civil rights, we discuss the gradual increase in the application of each to the various distinctions that the law continues to make between groups of people. Discrimination by the majority has become tougher to justify under federal law.
Everyone expects this case to wind up in the Supreme Court. The only question is when.
- Story in the NYT.
- A digital copy of the ruling here.
- A complilation of comments from Andrew Sullivan.
- A summary of the relevant facts in the ruling.
This is the latest in several rulings against gay marriage laws, but there's a twist: Andrew Sullivan points out a comment from one of his readers that Republican appointed judges were responsible for all these recent rulings:
"The Prop 8 case now makes three consecutive judicial opinions holding that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages have no rational basis. Interestingly, all three were authored by judges who were nominated or appointed by Republicans. Today’s Northern District of California opinion was authored by Judge Vaughn Walker, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Last month’s District of Massachusetts opinion was authored by Judge Joseph Tauro, who was nominated by Richard Nixon. The Iowa Supreme Court (unanimous) opinion was authored by Justice Mark Cady, who was appointed by Republican Governor Terry E. Branstad."
There are some who argued that this decision might help drive conservatives to the polls and punish Democrats for their party's support of same sex rights, but if Republican appointed judges are responsible for these rulings, what's the point in that? Can elections play any role in this process? Or have the courts decided that homosexuals are, following Fed #10, a minority to be protected from the tyranny of the majority? This removes these policies from the direct impact of the electoral process.
