Those same judges ruled that the stronger law (the constitutional amendment - Prop 8) should stand. From there, the case went to this federal trial, and it is expected that whatever today's ruling is, the case will continue to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, unless another case gets there first and this one isn't considered at the same time.
Marriage neutering advocates - who wish to invalidate the state constitutional amendment reinforcing the bride+groom requirement - had the burden of proof in this case, and they failed to demonstrate that the federal court had a Constitutional obligation to invalidate the state's amendment. Regardless, it is possible Walker could rule against the amendment. If he does, it will be interesting to see is if he orders the immediate removal of the bride+groom requirement, or if he allows the amendment to remain in effect pending appeal.
There is no Constitutional obligation for states to treat different kinds of voluntary associations the same*. However, California has chosen for years to treat same-sex couples registered as domestic partners equally to married couples - so the state already provides equal protection to these couples.
We covered the trial extensively on this blog, debunking the arguments made by those attacking the amendment. Click on the "Prop 8 Trial" tag to see that extensive coverage. Some highlights are found here, here, and here.
More explanation and analysis can also be found here, here, and here.
[*Edited from "differently" to "the same", which is what I inteded to write initially.]
Nihilism & the end of Law (1993)
ReplyDelete"A rationalistic culture teaches us to think that truth is the product of a process of logical reasoning. When we are dealing with intermediate or detailed truths, which rest on more fundamental premises, this model is correct. The model breaks down, however, when we try to apply it to the fundamental premises themselves. This is because logic is a way of getting to conclusions from premises. By its very nature, a logical argument cannot justify the premises upon which it rests. When these premises are questioned, they have to be justified by a different logical argument, which rests upon different premises.
We may follow this process forever, and we will never encounter anything but another logical argument, which will itself be based upon premises. But then what is the ultimate premise, the Archimedean fulcrum on which intellect can sit and judge all the rest? If we try to answer that question by employing logic we lapse into the absurdity of circular reasoning. Reasoning has to start somewhere. Any attempt to justify the ultimate starting point necessarily fails, because it only establishes a different starting point. Hence, the really important step in any argument is apt to be the unexplained, unjustified, and often unstated starting point."