Rational Basis

For those who might be curious, I will give a quick summary of the legal basis under which Judge Walker overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage. Our legal doctrine holds that if the state wants to impose any limits on anybody's freedom to do anything, it must have a reason for doing so. The more important the freedom, the more important the reason for limiting it has to be. But there must be some reason for any limitation. The lowest standard is called the "rational basis" rule, that is, the court holds that to limit many things the state only has to show that its law has a "rational basis." And the one thing legislators are never allowed to do is to ban something because of animus, that is, because they don't like somebody.

The argument made by the plaintiffs in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger was that the state of California had no rational basis for banning same-sex marriage, and that in fact the law was motivated by animus against gay people. The defense produced some "expert witnesses" who tried to show that there is a state purpose to banning gay marriage, but the plaintiffs' attorneys made fools of them. Judge Walker agreed with the plaintiffs that the law had no rational basis, so he overturned it:

Proposition 8 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. 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.