Federal Judge Rules on Prop 8

I disagree with this ruling.

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote.

The judge added in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

His ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians. The landmark case is expected to be appealed and could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is not a right for your marriage to be recognized by the state.  There is a right to marry, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.  Agree or disagree with gay marriage, it isn’t a matter of rights.

Furthermore, the judge sets an interesting standard when he says, “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights…”  First, as I said, it’s not a right to have the state give you a piece of paper acknowledging your marriage.  Second, many laws are indeed based on a “moral disapproval.”  The judge’s standard becomes ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion.  Bestiality?  Polygamy?  Public nudity?  Prostitution?  Child labor?  Indentured servitude?  Mandatory emergency medical care?  Hardcore porn on over-the-air television channels?  Ban on trans fats?  Hunting limits?  Environmental preservation?  These are all things that we can debate, but our laws regarding them are based in morality (or ethics) - not rights. 

While moral disapproval alone might not be a justification for a law, neither is moral approval justification for overturning a law.