Judge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker.* "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. 
 
 Justice Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words? 
 
 But for all the lofty language about freedom and morality, nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today. Indeed, the whole point of this legal exercise—the lengthy trial, the spectacularly detailed finding of facts (80 of them! with subheadings!)—was to pit expert against expert, science against science, and fact against prejudice. 
 
 It's hard to read Judge Walker's opinion without sensing that what really won out today was science, methodology, and hard work. Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn't much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" and then putting on almost no case. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 
 
 Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight." 
 
 Then come the elaborate "findings of fact"—and recall that appellate courts must defer far more to a judge's findings of fact than conclusions of law. Here is where Judge Walker knits together the trial evidence, to the data, to the nerves at the very base of Justice Kennedy's brain. Among his most notable determinations of fact, Walker finds: states have long discriminated in matters of who can marry; marital status affects immigration, citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules, and benefits programs; that individuals do not choose their own sexual orientation; California law encourages gay couples to become parents; domestic partnership is a second-class legal status; permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, or otherwise screw around. He found that it benefits the children of gay parents to have them be married and that the gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. He found that Prop 8 puts the force of law behind a social stigma and that the entirety of the Prop 8 campaign relied on instilling fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay. (Brand-new data show that the needle only really moved in favor of the Prop 8 camp when parents of young children came out in force against gay marriage in the 11th hour of the campaign.) He found that stereotypes targeting gays and lesbians have resulted in terrible disadvantages for them and that the Prop 8 campaign traded on those stereotypes. 
 
 And then Walker turned to his conclusions of law, finding that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses: 
 
 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. 
 
 Is that the end of it? Oh, no. Judge Walker is already being flayed alive for the breadth and boldness of his decision. The appeals road will be long and nasty. Walker has temporarily stayed the ruling pending argument on a stay. (Rick Hasen argues it may be wise for him to stay the order pending appeal for tactical reasons.) Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact. 
 
 Correction, Aug. 8, 2010: This line was erroneously attributed to Anthony Kennedy. It was actually written by Sandra Day O'Connor. (Return to the paragraph.) 
 
 
 
 Watch the reaction to the verdict from Proposition 8 plaintiffs: 
 
 
 
 Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. 
 
 Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. 
 
 Like This Story ||||| A federal judge’s forceful opinion Wednesday in favor of same-sex marriage is only the beginning of a process that is likely to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court . 
 
 The ultimate outcome of the California case cannot be predicted, but appeals court judges and the justices at the highest court in the land could find themselves boxed in by the careful logic and structure of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinion, legal experts said. 
 
 In his ruling, Judge Walker found that California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage irrationally discriminates against gay men and women. 
 
 To opponents of same-sex marriage, the ruling was a travesty that usurped the will of millions of California voters. Brian S. Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, called it "a horrendous decision" that "launched the first salvo in a major culture war over same-sex marriage and the proper purview of the courts." 
 
 But Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern Law School, said "if the Supreme Court does not want to uphold same-sex marriage, its job has been made harder by this decision." 
 
 The reason, he said, is that while appeals courts often overturn lower-court judges on their findings of law -- such as the proper level of scrutiny to apply to Proposition 8 -- findings of fact are traditionally given greater deference. 
 
 “They are supposed to take as true facts found by the district court, unless they are clearly erroneous," he said. "This opinion shows why district courts matter, even though the Supreme Court has the last word." 
 
 And to that end, Judge Walker’s 136-page opinion lays a rich factual record, with extensive quotation of expert testimony from the lengthy trial. The 2008 initiative campaign to ban same-sex marriages was suffused, the judge said, with moral comparisons of these unions and heterosexual marriage, with the clear implication that "denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children" and that "the ideal child-rearing environment" requires marriage between a man and a woman. 
 
 Judge Walker wrote, however, that the Supreme Court has stated that government cannot enforce moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. The judge suggested that the defendants shifted their arguments for the courtroom, with a focus on "statistically optimal" child-rearing households and by arguing that they were abiding by the will of California voters. 
 
 California’s law, he wrote, demanded discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians," he wrote, including the notion that "gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals" and "gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society." 
 
 In his ruling, Judge Walker took a conservative approach to his findings of law, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Judge Walker laid the factual groundwork that might have allowed him to invoke the tough "strict scrutiny" test to Proposition 8 -- a test that most laws flunk. 
 
 "His decision does not depend on the higher court finding strict scrutiny," he said, a legal finding that a higher court might well overturn. Instead, he subjected the law to a lower standard that many laws can pass, but that this one, in his opinion, does not. 
 
 "He finds it doesn’t even meet rational basis review" for the legal distinction between same-sex marriage and heterosexual unions, Professor Chemerinsky said. 
 
 Even some of those who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it is not clear or easy. Associate Professor Doug NeJaime at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles said while Judge Walker’s ruling he found "a great opinion," he was skeptical of the strategy to take a marriage case through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker’s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, he said, the Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact. 
 
 "We’ve seen time and time again that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants" with the factual record, and "I don’t see five justices on the Supreme Court taking Judge Walker’s findings of fact to the place that he takes them." 
 
 Professor NeJaime suggested the case might turn on the Court’s traditional swing vote, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has shaped decisions that strike down laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians. The rational basis test used by Judge Walker is in line with the standard used by Justice Kennedy in such cases as Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state sodomy law. By structuring an opinion that allows the Court to use the lower level of scrutiny, Judge Walker "is speaking to Justice Kennedy," he said. 
 
 Professor Jesse H. Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it is too soon to tell which way Justice Kennedy might come down on the issue of same-sex marriage. "I have no way of predicting how he’d come down on this and I don’t think he does, either, at this point." 
 
 Ultimately, Professor NeJaime said, even the four more liberal justices on the Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. "The Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things," he said. 
 
 Reverend Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, Calif., and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, agreed. 
 
 "Given the present makeup of the Supreme Court at this time, ’one woman, one man’ will stand," he said. 
 
 And that is why Professor Chemerinsky said "this is a huge victory for the supporters of marriage equality -- but it’s not the last word."
– Judge Vaughn Walker’s masterfully written ruling striking down Proposition 8 “was written for a court of one,” namely Anthony Kennedy, writes Dahlia Lithwick of Slate. Walker quotes extensively from Kennedy’s own findings (see Quotes, left), and his “findings of fact” section “knits together the trial evidence … to the nerves at the very base of Justice Kennedy’s brain.” These findings are so rigorous that “it’s hard to read Judge Walker’s opinion without sensing that what really won out was science, methodology, and hard work.” That’s important, because appellate courts often ignore findings of law, but give deference to findings of fact. Walker's findings are so well reasoned that they’ll make it much harder for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, one law professor tells the New York Times, adding, “This opinion shows why district courts matter.” But another law professor doubts it. “We’ve seen time and time again that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants,” he said.