Jonathan Rauch has concerns about the judicial decision that overturned California’s Prop. 8:
Last week, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared that California’s ban on same-sex marriage — and, by implication, any state’s ban — violates the U.S. Constitution. The case is on its way to appeal, where it may be overturned. Already, though, gay men and women across the country are celebrating unreservedly. I only wish I could join them.
That feels strange to say. After all, as a gay man, a leading proponent of gay marriage and half of a same-sex marriage myself (my partner and I got married in the District of Columbia in June), I find so much to celebrate. How could I not?
[. . .]
So I think the decision is a radical one, but not, ironically, as it pertains to homosexuality or to marriage. No, Walker’s radicalism lies elsewhere: In his use of the Constitution to batter the principles of its two greatest exponents — Madison and Abraham Lincoln, a Burkean who was steadfast in his belief that ideals must be leavened with pragmatism.
History will, I believe, vindicate Walker’s view of marriage. Whether it will see him as having done gay rights a favor is less clear. For all its morally admirable qualities, his decision sets the cause of marriage equality crosswise with moderation, gradualism and popular sovereignty. Which, in America, is a dangerous place to be.
