Posted on 08/05/2010 10:01:10 PM PDT by raynearhood
Yesterday, a very important gavel fell on marriage. The central institution of human civilization suffered a direct hit, and its future hangs in the balance.
The importance of the decision handed down yesterday by U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in California’s Proposition 8 trial will be difficult to exaggerate. Proponents of same-sex marriage immediately declared a major victory — and for good reason. The editorial board of The New York Times declared the verdict “an instant landmark in American legal history,” and so it is, even if later reversed upon appeal.
Judge Walker’s decision is sweeping and comprehensive, basically affirming every argument and claim put forth by those demanding that California’s Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional. That proposition, affirmed by a clear majority of California voters, amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In one brazen act of judicial energy, California’s voters were told that they had no right to define marriage, and thousands of years of human wisdom were discarded as irrational.
Even as the case is immediately appealed, the reality is that a Federal court has now declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Pressing beyond this verdict, Judge Walker also released a set of “findings” that include some of the most radical statements about marriage yet encountered.
In rendering his verdict, Judge Walker declared that California’s Proposition 8 violates both the equal protection and due process rights of homosexual citizens. The proposition, he concluded, “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” He continued: “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.”
In order to reach this conclusion, Judge Walker provided more than 100 pages of legal reasoning, based on the evidence that he allowed or accepted. On page after page, Judge Walker arbitrarily accepted the claims put forth by proponents of same-sex marriage as rational, and declares the evidence and arguments put forth by the defenders of Proposition 8 as lacking in any rational basis.
The decision handed down Wednesday in San Francisco comes with virtually no surprise. Judge Walker’s statements and rulings in the course of the trial proceedings pointed directly to the decision released yesterday.
This decision, whatever its final resolution, serves as an undeniable reminder of the power of Federal judges. A single unelected judge nullified the will of the voters of California as expressed through the electoral process. Those who have been arguing that judicial activism is a fiction will have to look this decision in the face. The New York Times celebrated Judge Walker’s usurpation of the political process, arguing that “there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.” The paper and the proponents of same-sex marriage clearly hope that this is one of those times.
That is clearly the most significant dimension of the verdict. Judge Walker’s decision, bearing the full force of a Federal court, adds to the sense of inevitability that the proponents of same-sex marriage have been so carefully constructing in recent years. Defenders of marriage as a heterosexual institution should resist the temptation to minimize the significance of this decision, even as the verdict is vigorously appealed. Yesterday’s ruling is a huge win for the homosexual community, and a significant step toward the full normalization of homosexuality within the culture.
Anyone who reads Judge Walker’s decision will see that the normalization of homosexuality was one of his major concerns. Any belief that heterosexual relations are morally superior to homosexual relations “is not a proper basis on which to legislate,” he asserted. Proposition 8, he insisted, “was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.” The judge claimed to have “uncloaked” the real reason California’s voters adopted Proposition 8 — “a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.”
The judge released enumerated “findings” within his decision. Among the most important — and startling — of these are the following:
“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent.”
“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”
In a breathtaking and brief sentence, Judge Walker asserted: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
Until this verdict, such language had never appeared in a decision of a Federal court. If gender is no longer “an essential part of marriage,” then marriage has been essentially redefined right before our eyes.
The religious liberty dimensions of the decision are momentous and deeply troubling. While Judge Walker declared that the religious freedoms of citizens and religious bodies were not violated because no such body is required to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, the very structure of his argument condemned religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as both harmful and irrational.
Beyond this, Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest. In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters. The judge’s statements condemning religious opposition to homosexuality speak for themselves in terms of animus.
Judge Walker’s decision will be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, also located in San Francisco — the most notoriously liberal appeals court in the nation. Inevitably, the case will be then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision handed down by Judge Walker, especially as expressed in his findings, was clearly constructed with such appeals in mind.
Thousands of cases make their way through the Federal courts each year. Some are important, but only a few have lasting legal significance. Whatever happens on appeal, the decision handed down yesterday by Judge Vaughn R. Walker will reverberate for decades to come. Yesterday, a very important gavel fell on marriage. The central institution of human civilization suffered a direct hit, and its future hangs in the balance.
In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters. The judge’s statements condemning religious opposition to homosexuality speak for themselves in terms of animus.This, I think, is the "new" big deal of this decision. The precedent based rulings of the federal courts have tended towards overt secular humanism as the sole "rational" basis for governance. This, I believe, is the case which sets that very overt precedent.
It’s pretty damn expensive to float a proposition for the ballot. Maybe we should just forget voting and let the judiciary set our laws?
The homosexual lobby tried to destroy the Boy Scouts a few years ago and got smacked down by the US Supreme Court. They haven’t been able to bother the scouts since. One can only hope and pray the same thing will happen in this case. But if Obama gets to replace a conservative on the court we are all doomed.
Conservatives yell about the Constitution but never seem to have very good lawyers..
My deep concerns are mainly from a biological/cultural, not religious, point of view.
Judge Walker didn’t need convincing, he’s a homosexual and had a personal stake in the outcome of the case. He wanted TV cameras in the Courtroom so he could berate 1 side on Television and praise the other.
This guy is slime and deserves to be treated as such, his own glory and hopes for promotion rank higher to him than the future of our Country and the Constitution.
If they can apply the equal protection clause when Judge Walker has the same right as you or I to marry any female of his choosing, he declines and wants to have sex with men.
It seems to me that the lawyers for our side are not good tacticians and very poor at PR. The information should have been used for a recusal request and they should have asked for a venue change as well.
In the last days, the will call good evil and evil good.
The question is this: how will the people of California react? Will they take this piece of filth without lifting a finger, or will they rise up and strike down those responsible for perverting law so violently having the intent to corrupt their children and to level all morals and decency.
Those who render obscene dictates must themselves be considered obscene and unfit to hold positions of authority.
The people of California must openly defy these wolves in black robes. They must shout with a unified voice so terrible in its rage that its vibrations shatter the pseudo sacrosanct halls of rot that have become our legal system. When the leaders are corrupt and the institutions with them, then it is the duty of every citizen to act towards their dissolution. As it was written long ago:
“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 of 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. ...”
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
Members of my extended family were all happy today on Facebook about this court decision. I responded and will probably be un-friended. I felt, though, that they have probably never even really heard a thoughtful objection to same-sex marriage.
Say hello to polygamy...
One homo San Fransicko judge cavalierly throws out the votes of millions of Californians and people want to make a big deal out of it.. Sheesh.
IMPEACH THE FREAKING JUDGE!!!!
Come on California!!!... If your collective vote can be trumped by a single man, SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THAT MAN!!!
GET RID OF HIM, OR LOSE YOUR FREEDOM!!!
It will be curious to see how this is played out, since licensing is usually a state not federal issue. How does it effect the other criteria states demand in allowing a marriage license to be issued? Age, blood testing, familial distance etc.
This is calculated.
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.