Posted on 08/06/2010 4:35:39 PM PDT by Kaslin
The 14th Amendment is a mighty sword, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker used it Wednesday to flay and shred all the specious arguments—and I mean all of them—that are used to deny full marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans. Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow.
Walker found that California's Proposition 8, which sought to ban gay marriage in the state, violated not one but two of the amendment's clauses—those guaranteeing due process, and equal protection under the law. By deciding the case on constitutional grounds, and by crafting such a detailed and comprehensive ruling, Walker all but guaranteed that the issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court.
It is not irrational for proponents of gay marriage to worry how the high court will finally rule, given its recent record of conservative activism. But Walker's ruling will not be so easy to assail.
At trial, the losing side presented a shockingly weak case. By contrast, the plaintiffs' legal team — led by two superlawyers from opposite ends of the political spectrum, conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies — offered witnesses and arguments that covered every conceivable base.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker concluded. "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.
"Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
“Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Because they are by any and every logical measure of evaluation. Point blank.
This opinion piece is utterly laughable. Walker’s “reasoning” is so weak that the opinion qualifies as the single biggest piece of judicial activism ever written. Even those in favor of same-sex ‘marriage’ over at the Volokh Conspiracy are struck by how weak Walker’s arguments were. They are completely out of step with settled law. Walker just made up new law whole-cloth, in a desperate attempt to try to decide via fiat what the voters rejected.
Robinson is desperately spinning, and the media is desperate in its attempt to prop up the indefensible.
Yep, the founding fathers wrangled extensively over faggots and lesbo's while drawing up the Constitution.
No matter how the courts rule in the end, gay people are up against an insurmountable obstacle. They can never change the definition of marriage in the vast majority of Americans’ minds. Nor will they ever be able to establish homosexuality as a norm. By definition, their behaviour deviates from the norm and, like it or not, they will always be perceived as deviants.
I have three questions which nobody has answered in the news coverage and talking head programs I’ve seen. The questions are:
1. Since Prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment, lawfully adopted under the laws of the state of California, how can it be unconstitutional? The California Supreme Court agreed that it was lawfully adopted.
2. How can Prop. 8 be unconstitutional under federal law, since Prop. 8 defines marriage in exactly the same way as does federal law? Is the judge saying that our federal marriage laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, are also unconstitutional?
3. Are federal judges the only people who are now allowed to define marriage? This ruling and the recent ruling in federal court in Mass. call into question if anyone besides judges have any authority to define what marriage is.
What is unbelievable about this case, is that Walker’s homosexuality was not mentioned until after the ruling. Had Walker been a Mormon you can bet that would have been public knowledge, and demands that he recuse himself would have been deafening.
Exactly
As Dennis Prager (the wisest talk show host on radio) said yesterday - if the definition of marriage is unconstitutional because of the 14th. Amendment, then it has been unconstitutional for over one hundred and forty years. That was not the intent of the men who wrote the amendment.
I believe our Framers would make the following argument.
Walker exercised legislative powers reserved to Congress or the State of California, not to the judiciary:
Before Prop 8, marriage was between a man and a woman.
On passage of Prop 8 to the CA Constitution, marriage was between a man and a woman.
Walker, a lone judge decided to effectively pass legislation that homosexual marriage is the law. He does not have the authority to exercise legislative powers.
I know that the vows I made before God are different than those they would make without God's sanction. This is witnessed by our 41 years and 4 natural children.
bookmark.
Screw me in the ass and call it marriage!
Placemark for possible pingout. People have had enough pings about this but maybe I’ll do it anyway.
Proposition 8 never mentioned gay men and lesbian women. It stated that marriage was between a man and a woman.
This is aimed at any and all variations of the perverted imaginations of men, and also aimed squarely at polygamy, for which there will be pressure in the future, and for which the Territory of Utah was denied admittance to the union. Really, Prpoposition 8 just underlines the intent, going back to that decision by the Congress in 1882, of codifying marriage. If the argument can be made that DOMA is unconstitutional, then the argument can be made that the Edmunds Act of 1882 is also unconstitutional.
Is this Vicki Gene Robinson, the heretical bishop of the Episcopal Church?
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.