Gay Marriage to Live Happily Ever After: Ann Woolner (Update2)

[Julie Marie]

This week's ruling in California represents more than a setback for opponents of same-sex marriage. It lays bare the sparseness of their evidence, the emptiness of their legal arguments and the hollowness of their claims that gay marriage would somehow undermine straight ones.

In 136 pages, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker analyzed testimony and studies that were scientific, historical, sociological and personal. He examined arguments constitutional and political.

And when he was done, he left little obvious room for reversal on appeal. However conservative the U.S. Supreme Court has become, and however sharply it is divided, chances are decent that the thrust of Walker's order will survive.

Full Article

After reading the ruling I find it almost impossible any higher court will reverse it without blatantly showing prejudice.  Judge Walker did a phenomenal job of analyzing the evidence and explaining why he ruled the way he did.  The District Court of Appeals might not even hear the case.  It was that solid.

It turns out gay-marriage opponents were far more successful at convincing California voters they should fear same-sex couplings than they were at convincing the judge.

But then, in the popular arena, you don't have to back up your claims with facts. You can rely on prejudice to help you fan fears. It's fine to base your campaign on purely religious grounds. None of that works in court.

At least, it didn't work in Walker's court.

Let's hope the other court(s) reviewing this case feel the same way.