An Irrational Ruling

Yesterday, federal judge Vaughn R. Walker sent a blow to more than 7 million voters in California who had full faith in the democratic process. These citizens had extended their voting rights in November 2008 by passing Proposition 8, or a ban on same-sex marriage.

As gay-rights activists challenged the voter-passed referendum, the case made its way to Judge Walker in San Francisco. The Los Angeles Times reported, “The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage.”

But if Walker says Proposition 8 doesn’t survive the rational basis test, then is he implying that the majority of California voters, those who voted for the measure, aren’t rational?

Since 1998, thirty states have added language to their constitutions, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Does Walker believe the voters in these states aren’t rational either?

Frankly, I believe that progressive, activist judges, who issue their personal moral pronouncements under the guise of “constitutional law" are instead demonstrating irrational rulings.

In this case, we can expect to see Judge Walker’s ruling appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.