http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14sat2.html?th&emc=th function submitCCCForm(){ PopUp = window.open('', '_Icon','location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=650,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes'); this.document.cccform.submit(); } August 13, 2010 In Defense of Marriage On Wednesday, unless there is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, gay and lesbian couples in California once again will be able to marry. Like other couples around the world, they will be able to pledge to support each other, buy some dishes, raise families, argue about the bills, maybe sit on a park bench years from now and chuckle at the hysterical old claims that their lives together would destroy the institution of marriage. All of this used to be possible in California but was made illegal in 2008, when 52 percent of the voters passed Proposition 8, prohibiting same-sex marriage. On Aug. 4, Judge Vaughn Walker of Federal District Court ruled that the proposition violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of law, and, on Thursday, he said marriages could resume beginning Wednesday. Because of Judge Walker’s firmly reasoned and occasionally soaring decision earlier this month, there was no reason to continue the prohibition. After a full-blown trial that gave opponents every opportunity to prove the harm caused by same-sex marriage, the court found that it caused no harm whatsoever to the state or society. But substantial harm was caused to gay and lesbian couples by depriving them of their constitutional rights. There already are 18,000 same-sex couples in the state who were married before Proposition 8 was passed, and their presence does not seem to have damaged relationships between men and women. The State of California filed a brief with the court urging that marriages be allowed to resume immediately, making it clear that it would impose no burden and would, in fact, serve the public interest. The most intriguing part of the judge’s order on Thursday suggested that there may be no one with the proper standing to appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit. The State of California refused to defend Proposition 8 at the trial, so Judge Walker allowed a group called ProtectMarriage.com, which organized the campaign for the proposition, to present the defense. But he said the group has been unable to show that it was harmed by his ruling, and that ordinarily only the state could appeal a case like this. Because the state supports his ruling and won’t appeal it, he said there may be no appellate hearing. That question is up to Ninth Circuit. But even if Judge Walker’s ruling stands in California, it would be a shame if the case stopped there. Only through appeals, first at the Ninth Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, is there a chance that the principles set down by Judge Walker will apply to the entire country. Yes, there is the possibility that the judgment could be struck down, but it is sometimes necessary to take big risks to get important results, as the lawyers behind this lawsuit have demonstrated. If same-sex couples in California have the constitutional right to be part of the mainstream of society, then so should every couple in America.
