Prop. 8: Judge Walker's bias will be overruled

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 4 2010 | Maggie Gallagher

[Unam Sanctam]

It frightens me that we are just a couple of votes away on the Supreme Court to allow the Left to completely rewrite the Constitution at will and impose stheir social engineering and ocialism by judicial fiat.

[tlb]

>>> It’s called Revolution.

Instead of the battleflag saying “Don’t Tread on Me”, maybe you could use “Don’t Rearrange My Furniture”.

[djf]

What I am pizzed about this whole deal, well, besides for the ruling itself, is that they keep saying “Prop 8 overturned... Prop 8 overturned...”

NO!

The Constitution of the Sovereign state of California has been ruled unconstitutional!!!

In an area that never was part of the delegation of powers to the federal government, an area that is part of the sovereignty of the state!!

[rockinqsranch]

1989 appointed by H.W.Bush NOT Reagan.

[yarddog]

We are all correct. He was originally appointed by Reagan then appointed by Bush to the higher position. I had to look it up as I had read that he was appointed by Bush.

[lastchance]

The whole ruling is a circle j of Academia. It is disgusting that the Judge was so seduced by so called experts on the subject of homosexuality. He put great weight upon the fact that plaintiff’s experts had favorable opinions on homosexuality and saw it as being equal to heterosexuality. These experts were (I believe if memory serves) psychologists, historians and sociologists. The problem with these experts is this.

Academia is a very small, self serving, narrow minded bigoted, and elitist world. The disciplines of psychology and sociology have already decided that homosexual behavior is normal and good. Anyone who disagrees with that view is likely to not get articles or papers accepted for peer review (the judge thinks peer review is the cat’s meow). It also means students are carefully indoctrinated into a pro GLBT viewpoint. Think of the latest expulsion of a Christian from Counseling programs at University.

This results in those who support the GLBT agenda having their own world view reinforced and validated. All while opposing viewpoints are not permitted to gain the needed status to be given equal voice in the debate. This is not scholarship it is partisanship of the basest level.

A review of some of the opinions advanced by the so called experts is evidence enough of the outright agenda of these elites. And sometimes what they say is contradictory.

“Tr 2032:15-22 (Herek: Herek has conducted research in which he has found that the vast majority of lesbians and gay men, and most bisexuals as well, when asked how much choice they have about their sexual orientation say that they have “no choice” or “very little choice” about it.);

“Tr 2202:8-22 (Herek: “[M]ost people are brought up in
society assuming that they will be heterosexual. Little
boys are taught that they will grow up and marry a girl.
Little girls are taught they will grow up and marry a
boy. And growing up with those expectations, it is not
uncommon for people to engage in sexual behavior with
someone of the other sex, possibly before they have
developed their real sense of who they are, of what their
sexual orientation is. And I think that’s one of the
reasons why * * * [gay men and lesbians have]
experience[d] heterosexual intercourse. * * * [I]t is not
part of their identity. It’s not part of who they are,
and not indicative of their current attractions.”);

So let me understand gays and lesbians have no choice in their orientation. It is as stated elsewhere a core essential part of their identity, right? Unchangable and obvious to a person from the time romantic affection and/or sexual attraction for others starts manifesting itself. So how does that square with engaging in sexual behavior with the opposite sex?

The ruling also cited findings based on the known benefits of heterosexual marriage and assumed those benefits would apply to homosexual marriage. When no such proof for this has been advanced.

“Tr 578:11-579:9 (Peplau: A recent, large-scale study by
the Centers for Disease Control found that married
individuals, on average, fare better on “virtually every
measure” of health compared to non-married individuals.);
b. PX0708 at RFA No 84: Proponents admit that opposite-sex
couples who are married experience, on average, less
anxiety and depression and greater happiness and
satisfaction with life than do non-married opposite-sex
couples or persons not involved in an intimate
relationship;”

Later in the ruling the judge cites the author’s assumption that same sex marriages would result in the same benefits for the couple. But it is only an assumption. I could just as well assume that because some gays have stated that marriage does not necessarily mean being monogamous that they would not get the same benefits out of marriage since marriage as defined in these findings includes it being monogamous.

Another important factor in the ruling is the almost outright prejudice of the judge against people of religious conviction engaging in the public square. Read the ruling to see what I mean by this.

The ruling should be overturned. It is a stinker.

[Antoninus]

Bingo. This will go to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, there it will be upheld, requiring a Constitutional Amendment to stop the wholesale imposition of homosexual marriage on the entire nation.

Some of us said this would happen as soon as Lawrence v. Texas made sodomy a "God given right". We were called alarmist then.

Are we still alarmist?

Federal Marriage Amendment NOW.

[Mr Rogers]

No, no revolution. However, for the first time in my 50+ years, I think the anger is reaching a point where judges might be assassinated.

When government refuses to accept the will of the people via elections and law, then violence becomes a possibility. I remember the 60s. The people doing the violence then were hippies. If it happens again, it will be old men who know the system and who have nothing to lose because government has already taken everything they care about.

The judges of America are utterly corrupt. The SCOTUS is a 5-4 balance for minimal Constitutional rights. If something happened to Thomas or Scalia, then Obama and the Democrats would move it 5-4 the other way, with 5 judges who wouldn’t give a rat’s rear about anything except raw power. They would reverse Heller and others in a heartbeat.

Unless God delivers us, we are going to enter scary times. I’m sure many in 1770 thought it would all work out and George III would prevail.

[Mr Rogers]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..."

[NTHockey]

Most of the comments here are relying on one court or another overturning this ruling and reaffirming Prop 8. WRONG! The real issue is why are we allowing a court - ANY court, the right to overrule the ballot box.

We have allowed the courts one right they must not have - the power to overrule the people’s ABSOLUTE right to vote. Without the right to vote and choose our leaders and laws, there is no freedom. The judge has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

America has devolved from a republic to a “legalocracy”, where it is not we, the people who determine how we are governed, but the person who can hire the best lawyers. THIS IS TYRANNY AND I REFUSE TO ACCEPT.

[Jaded]

Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority

This is from a San Francisco newspaper? I'm shocked.

[fifedom]

"1989 appointed by H.W.Bush NOT Reagan."

And therein lies an interesting story. He WAS nominated by Reagan but the Dems blocked him because he was considered anti-homosexual in the case where the Olympics sued the Gay Olympics to make them stopping using their trademark.

He was re-nominated by Bush 41 and was finally confirmed.