Whether or not we think gay marriage is good public policy, we must form our opinion on Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional on the law. It's insufficient to say only that gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, and point to the troubling social consequences experienced by countries that have legalized it. While I agree with that sentiment, it's irrelevant considering that this is a legal matter. After all, we're strict constructionists, aren't we?
Therefore we should root any disagreements we have with Judge Walker's decision in legal analysis. The Heritage Foundation released this statement in response to the ruling:
Judge Walker's ruling today similarly abrogates the rule of law. Marriage has enjoyed unique status because unions of husband and wife are, in fact, unique, and because they uniquely serve the common good in ways that same-sex combinations simply cannot. We are confident the Supreme Court will reject Judge Walker's view that the people of California cannot protect the meaning of marriage in their state constitution.
I agree with the sentiment, but nowhere do I see in the statement where Walker's ruling was incorrect in a legal sense. [continue reading]