The Prop. 8 decision

To the surprise of (I suspect) no one, a federal trial-court judge has struck down California's law affirming that legal marriage is limited to relationships between one man and one woman.  Here is the (very long) opinion.  Nutshell version:  the law serves no legitimate rational (let alone "compelling") state interest -- only "private moral view[s]" -- and so the burdens it imposes on the court's understanding of the constitutionally protected right-to-marry are unjustified. 

As was (I think) expected, much of the opinion's work is done through the court's findings-of-fact.  One of these (No. 77) might be of interest:  "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

Give the opinion a read, and let us know what you think . . .    

UPDATE:  Andy Koppelman agrees with me that the trial judge's "findings of fact", rather than his legal analysis, are what really matter in this case.  (Andy probably does not share my sense that many of the 'facts" which the judge regarded as beyond dispute or clearly established are actually contestible normative propositions, but that's another matter.)

ANOTHER UPDATE:  Dave Hoffman suggests that the trial judge's findings of "fact" are really better regarded as assertions of "constitutional fact", and so probably will not (and should not) enjoy the deference generally given by appellate courts to lower courts' fact-finding.