“A private moral view that same-s-x couples are inferior to opposite-s-x couple is an improper basis for legislation…

“Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homos-xuality, 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.”

And so US federal judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8, the California vote that vetoed same-s-x marriage. Denying homos-xuals the right to marry, he effectively argues, is unconstitutional. The mood outside court, and across the nation, was euphoric. Appeals will come, no doubt, but this is what change looks and feels like.

During the trial, Harley Dennett writes for Crikey from the US capital today, Judge Walker asked the lawyer defending Proposition 8 what harm was caused by same-s-x marriage. His response?

“I don’t know. I don’t know.”

Political harm, perhaps. Julia Gillard has repeatedly spoken out against gay marriage during our federal election campaign (Tony Abbott’s opposition is well-known). Such an irrepressible global movement — Wikipedia counts 44 countries that allow gay marriage, joined last week month by Argentina — is a step too far in Gillard’s small-target strategy. A Little Australia in every respect.

But Judge Walker’s question remains: just what harm will it do?