Walker found that it violates the Constitution’s equal-protection promise to deny a minority group the fundamental right to wed. He found no compelling state interest in forbidding such marriages and that there was no credible evidence that society, the institution of marriage, children or anyone else would be harmed if gay people marry, he ruled. In fact, all evidence pointed to the benefits of letting people marry those they love and giving their children a more stable, legitimized family life.
Without any rational basis for banning these marriages, all that’s left is “the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.” Whether the belief stems from religion, moral disapproval or animus, none can justify discrimination, Walker said.
Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.
Isn't there no compelling state interest in forbidding them their on birth certificate and no credible evidence that society, the institution of adoption or anyone would be harmed by allowing adoptees this equal right? In fact, all evidence points to the benefits of letting people live with truth and honesty?
Doesn't discriminating against adopted persons and denying them the same equal access all other citizens enjoy fail to advance any rational basis in singling out adopted men and women for denial and violate their Constitutional right to equal protection?
And let us not forget that marriages between a man and his mail order bride are perfecctly moral and legal...as is buying babies and obtaining a false birth certificate saying you gave birth to them.