Skip to comments.Proposition 8 judge attacks churches
Posted on 08/11/2010 4:23:28 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's Aug. 4 ruling striking down California's Proposition 8 asserted far more than was necessary to redefine marriage as being between any two persons. Judge Walker's decision included controversial "findings of fact" that amounted to a massive new salvo in the culture wars over sexuality.
Drawing up his judicial robes, Judge Walker rejected "stereotypes and misinformation" that "have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians." He denied that there is "any rational basis" for distinguishing the marriage of man and woman from same-sex relationships. For example, Judge Walker found no reason why the state should prefer that a child grow up with his or her mother and father. "The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child's adjustment outcomes," he declared as "fact."
Having dismissed the stated motives of Proposition 8 supporters, the judge claimed to have "uncloak[ed]" their true motives: "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."
Judge Walker simply could have ruled that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution mandates that marriage be completely desexed. He could have said simply that Proposition 8 proponents misread the evidence about differences between male-female marriages and same-sex relationships. But Judge Walker went further and condemned their religious views. He stated as "fact" that "religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." Judge Walker quoted an anti-Prop 8 witness in identifying religion as "the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
This junk originally got fed to the court by the plaintiffs. Walker ate it up like it was cat treats. Any sane judge would have screened it out as irrelevant.
From Wikipedia, we have ... “Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived “insensitivity” to gays and the poor”
Agreed. Judge Walker, you’ve made your assertions. Unless you’re full of hot air, PROVE THEM or show yourself the door! Maybe you’ve told yourself that, since it is within your power to make this ruling, that, since it falls in line with your personal opinion, that it is right and just to do so. How can you sleep, knowing the travesty you have made of the LAW, something a judge should hold in such high regard, as nothing else in their lives. Have you no shame, sir?
Liberals are codependency writ large. They can’t enjoy something unless they bludgeon the rest of their world to say they like it too.
Awwwww, so this is how he makes up with the Wicked Witch of the West?
There is no way that this man should have sat on the bench for this proceeding. His incoherent ramblings attest to that. There is not any ambiguity in what is intended by the contract of marriage, and there is nobody who does not understand that, except for people like this man, Judge Vaughn Walker, who deliberately pervert it to purvey their giddy ‘Alice in Wonderland’ view of society.
Enough is enough! The time has come to stop listening to goofballs like Judge Walker.
Interesting that the comments on this article in the Wash Times are from four different new users with random character user names and all have the same annoyed tone carping about alleged bigotry and homophobia of Prop 8 supporters. I suspect these comments were all written by the same person.
“Liberals are codependency writ large. They cant enjoy something unless they bludgeon the rest of their world to say they like it too.”
Holy s#@%! that made me laugh!!!!
Do you want the state to force your witness testimony against your spouse in a suit because you are just two people off the street, complete strangers in their eyes?