On August 4, District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down Proposition 8, the California voter-approved ban on same sex marriage. Vaughn, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, said that the ban violated the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process of law. In a clear and coherently worded 136-page opinion, Judge Walker laid out a road map that will wend its way upward to the Supreme Court.

Walker was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan and had to wait almost two years to be confirmed during the first Bush administration. Often described as an independent-minded conservative, he has ruled on cases involving newspaper mergers, high-tech corporate battles and the George W. Bush administration’s use of wiretaps without warrants. He is used to controversial subjects.

Proposition 8 was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Two gay couples brought their case to court, challenging the ban on gay marriage as discriminatory and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The two and a half week trial took place in January and brought national attention because of the controversy surrounding the subject. The judge in his opinion, quickly disposed of the argument that a majority of voters could ban same sex marriage in a referendum – thus making discrimination permissible. He called the results of Proposition 8 “irrelevant” quoting a 1943 case and precedent that “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

Excerpts from Judge Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8 strike at the heart of the issue:

“Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus toward gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. The Constitution cannot control private biases, but neither can it tolerate them . . . “

“California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to ‘mandate its own moral code. Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest’ has never been a rational basis for legislation . . .” For further emphasis, he wrote, “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians . . .”

He responded to the arguments presented by both sides during the trial with this part of the ruling, “Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal-protection rights and they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8...” He also wrote that “California already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrable harm as a result; moreover California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

The carefully constructed opinion comes to a close, “Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional . . .”

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California and across the country were incensed by Judge Walker’s ruling. They stressed the fact that the decision overturned the will of the people in California and predicted it would play a major role in the mid-term election in November. Dr. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California, said, “This is going to set off a groundswell of opposition. It’s going to rally people that might have been silent.”

Advocates of gay rights were jubilant. “Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of the same sex,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles. “So, denying us equality within the family system is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people.” She was joined by Kristin Perry, one of the plaintiffs, who said, “Our family is just as loving, just as real and just as valid an anyone else’s.”

The two lawyers who argued the case for the plaintiffs were described as “The Odd Couple” because of their ideological differences. They had been on opposing sides of the historic Bush v. Gore case when the Supreme Court decided who would be President of the United States after the drawn-out election of 2000. David Boies for Gore and Theodore Olsen for Bush joined their formidable legal talents to present a very strong case for the two couples who went to court to overturn Proposition 8. The lawyers had brought the case, Perry v. Schwarzennegger, to trial in May 2009. On the day of Judge Walker’s decision, Olsen called the ruling, “a victory for the American people” and anyone who had been denied rights “because they are unpopular, because they are a minority, because they are viewed differently.”

Judge Walker’s ruling that marriage is a Constitutional right will now move up the appeals ladder until it reaches the Supreme Court. Other federal judges and then Justices will read his ruling and hear arguments debating his fundamental findings and conclusions. Judge Walker wrote that traditional ideas of marriage can no longer be used to support discrimination. He made clear that gender roles in marriage have changed over the years. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”

Joyce S. Anderson is the author of “Courage in High Heels,” “Flaw in the Tapestry,” “If Winter Comes” and “The Mermaids Singing.” She can be reached at JSAWrite@aol.com.