Did you read ANY of his rant (er, uhhhhh DECISION) this is a Gay with a mission...er, a guy with a mission...welll, his position is not a missionary one...ahhhhhh...fugeddit. A typical fruitloop on the bench...shame on us all for allowing this.
The 9th will affirm and if it is accepted by the SCOTUS it will be up to Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
Asshat judge. Does not even know the law.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
United States Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7
Will NOT stand... This is just another case of the Judiciary reaching beyond the law. If the Supreme Court upholds this, it will be another peg against law and order in the US. (Actually, just a small part of an ongoing rebellion against the attempt to overrule the people). After all, the people rule, NOT the government and the Constitution shall be read as written, not as they prefer...
And Kennedy’s bias?
I would have guessed a Clinton appointee but was surprised to learn we have George Bush to thank for this one.
The case will definitely be overturned. It was doomed from the start when the militant homosexuals were allowed to cherry pick Judge Walker, an avowed and unrepentant homosexual. What next, are we going to choose pedophile judges to preside over molestation cases. This is pure insanity. Luckily, the USSC will slap queer Walker in his face and overturn this soon.
I should think it would.
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.
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.
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.
This is from a San Francisco newspaper? I'm shocked.