Posted on 08/12/2010 3:40:48 PM PDT by markomalley
Thank goodness Judge Walker has enlightened us. All those years we thought that marriage was a union of a man and a woman, but now we know that was "an irrational classification." Not just irrational but harmful. Not just harmful but unconstitutional.
But there's a problem with Judge Walker's logic. If it is unconstitutional to disallow same-sex marriage, why was the old, unenlightened, restrictive, pre-Walker, irrational definition of marriage upheld by the very men who wrote the Constitution? Most of these men were members of legislatures; they could have revised the laws of their own states to make the legal definition of marriage match the principles that they were setting forth. Yet they didn't. Why not? Were they being irrational?
And if the authors of the Constitution were irrational men, what other nasty surprises might we have in store for us? What other emanations might emerge from the penumbrae of the document, leading us to discover a meaning apparently quite different from the Founders' own understanding? The men who gathered for the Constitutional Convention would have recoiled in horror at the idea that abortion, sodomy, or even contraception could be tolerated in society. Yet we now know, thanks to the infallible logic of contemporary jurisprudence, that these are fundamental rights, guaranteed by the document which these same men wrote. If they were so irrational-- if they were capable of crafting and enacting a document so totally at odds with their own beliefs and practices-- it's impossible to say what other time bombs might be hidden in the Constitution. It's safer to assume that they produced a document full of contradictions: a document at war with itself.
Judge Walker didn't go far enough. It's not just the definition of marriage that needs to be re-examined. There's bigger game in this legal forest. The real challenge for Judge Walker and his peers on the judicial bench is to determine whether or not the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Judge Walker is a liar, and he knows he is a liar who has fabricated a fiction to further his own bigotry. IMHO
The judge’s “logic” is paper thin. Let’s examine it.
His opinion is that, marriage between a man and a woman is “an irrational classification.”
So what is the “rationality” involved in two men, or two women, engaging in a pseudo-sexual act, not a sexual act, mind you, that cannot result in offspring? Homosexuality is itself an irrational act.
Next, let us examine the rationality of “marriage”. If marriage is *solely* a “social convenience”, then it is an irrational act. However, it is not a social convenience, but an easy to establish, biological prerogative, that gives a better result to reproduction than just animalistic mating.
Heterosexual men are compelled to distribute their DNA to as many offspring as possible. Heterosexual women are compelled to get both the best DNA for their offspring, *and* the best male provider to help them raise their offspring. If there are more than just one man available, it is much less likely that these are the same man.
So marriage is a *biological* prerogative, which helps guarantee to the man that the offspring are his; and is a promise that the man will reproduce with only the woman and help them raise their children. And its advantages to the children are also obvious, of having two parents to provide for them.
However, homosexuals have no *need* for such an arrangement. They do not intend to share DNA in reproduction. Nor is there any need for them to raise offspring. Nor even is there any reason for them to remain monogamous, as a “mating pair”.
Therefore, marriage for them is frivolous. As much as for an individual to marry his sofa, because he likes to use it.
Today, there is no good information about the long term effects of children being raised by homosexuals. This is because the American Psychological Association has a overt interest in “normalizing” homosexuality, as not being pathological. This clearly biases their observations and conclusions as to child development in those circumstances.
As such, this denigrates the value of such children as human beings, worthy of being raised in the best circumstances, because of a crude and repulsive political agenda. It is the unethical flip side of saying that (heterosexual) parents of one race cannot race a child of another race.
In any event, the “logic” of this judge is poor, so fails as an argument against Proposition 8.
Romans 1:18-23 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God madie it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
By the time this communist, muslim, America hating, egomaniac SOB is through we will be lucky to still have a Constitution and not a manifesto.
Portions of state constitutions have been declared unconstitutional by state supreme courts and those decisions have been accepted by the states in which it happened. That is an unnerving precedent.
This judge's decision is equivalent to legalizing polygamy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.