Posted on 08/05/2010 10:25:48 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
It has been clear since before the beginning of the year that Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco was on a mission to establish a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage and thereby to overturn California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed by the people of the state in 2008.
From his decision to have a “trial” of the “facts” in the case rather than proceed straightaway to legal arguments about the constitutional issues (a choice that surprised even the plaintiffs’ attorneys) to his attempt to stage a nationally televised extravaganza (brought to a halt by the Supreme Court) to his unconcealed bias in favor of the plaintiffs in virtually every aspect of the proceedings (ably summarized by NRO’s Ed Whelan here), Judge Walker has been preparing us for a baldfaced usurpation of political power for quite a while.
What Walker did not prepare us for is the jaw-dropping experience of reading his sophomorically reasoned opinion. Of the 135 pages of the opinion proper, only the last 27 contain anything resembling a legal argument, while the rest is about equally divided between a summary of the trial proceedings and the judge’s “findings of fact.” The conclusions of law seem but an afterthought — conclusory, almost casually thin, raising more questions than they answer. On what grounds does Judge Walker hold that the considered moral judgment of the whole history of human civilization — that only men and women are capable of marrying each other — is nothing but a “private moral view” that provides no conceivable “rational basis” for legislation? Who can tell? Judge Walker’s smearing of the majority of Californians as irrational bigots blindly clinging to mere tradition suggests that he has run out of arguments and has nothing left but his reflexes.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
I’ve made the same argument many times. Homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, not an identity.
Not an unexpected decision, with a poofter judge.
He's gay
Took Prop 8 supporters MONTHS to put together a campaign, get enough signatures for it to be on the ballot, raise money, run ads supporting their initiative and go out to vote for it.
It took this judge 30 seconds to throw it out.
Welcome to Obamaland.
Marriage shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither same-sex nor polygamous unions shall be recognized by the United States or by the states.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to prohibit homosexual acts, polygamous acts, and sexual acts involving minors.
I’m more outraged that this judge essentially looked down his nose at the voters who approved Proposition 8. He said they voted out of fear or bias against gays. I maintain they voted the way they did because, unlike the judge, they had at least a miniscule knowledge of the Constitution. Furthermore, he issued his opinion based on his own biases and fears. I don’t know if it could be done, but if I were a voter in California, I’d be clamoring to have this guy removed. He’s not a judge; he’s a social arbiter. And he’s leading California and by extension the rest of this country down the path to moral destruction. There will be hell to pay for this judge if he doesn’t reverse his decision.
By all accounts the pro-traditional family side came to court unprepared, with little evidence and just a couple witnesses who just spoke off the cuff.
The judge shouldn’t have ruled the way he did. But apparently our side was lazy or incompetent.
Does Judge Walker pitch or catch?
It has been decades since I & R was adopted in California.
You get enough qualified signatures you get a referendum on the ballot.
Since when is it legal to then have the sore loser overturn the result.
What is the point of I & R
Either I & R is legal or it isn’t. If it’s not binding why bother to spend millions of dollars on an election if it doesn’t mean anything.
“... I don’t know if it could be done, but if I were a voter in California, I’d be clamoring to have this guy removed....”
While there may be angry voters in California, there is nothing they can do to remove of federal judge.
“...There will be hell to pay for this judge if he doesn’t reverse his decision.”
Walker is not going to reverse his decision.
And the 9th will Affirm Walker’s decision and if the SCOTUS takes the case, you can expect; Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kennedy to rule Prop 8 to be Unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause.
The Judge is a homosexual.
Yes.
Here is a post I left on “Did the Judge Make the Right Call” thread:
“Tried to leave the following comment but I wouldn’t sign up:
The trap is to agree to the underlying premise in the first place. Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. By failing to understand this, you build your argument on a falsehood to begin with. The examples of the recent court custody fights between states are a perfect illustration. In these fights one half of a lesbian couple leaves the lifestyle and gets married to men. They then don’t want to share custody with the former female partner.
So how can it be an identity if you are “gay” on Monday and “straight” on Friday?
The core problem is that homosexuality is a disorder. It is an aberration of the normal. Sorry, facts are stubborn things. The judge in this case suffers from the disorder and should have recused himself from the case to begin with. Many gays become ex-gays over time and NARTH and other organizations can help.
This ruling should be overturned, but with the current lack of thinking among people, it is doubtful it will be. Regardless, the homosexuals who “marry” will not be married. Marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is denied that.”
:The core problem is that homosexuality is a disorder.”
Be careful, if homosexuality is a “disorder” then it would be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and they would then be protected against discrimination by federal law.
Wishful thinking on my part. :(
This country is going to hell in a handbasket.
He never should have ruled and old man Bush should have never put him in the job. I am hating Bush Sr. more every day.
My concern is that this same argument can be made the other way with a straight judge, given the nature of this. Maybe the only answer is a 2-judge panel where no one can claim one side dominated the opinion.
That said, why do we continusously go through this charade of having a ballot proposition when we all know that whatever the outcome, the proposition will be challenged after the fact? Couldn't someone have determined whether or not it was Constitutional before being placed on the ballot and money spent with the MSM to advertise for or against?
I don't buy the argument that we had to wait to see if it passed before making a legal challenge, because it would be moot if it failed. I'd think people would have liked to know before donating money whether it was Constitutional or not. Allowing people to spend their hard-earned money on an issue that was already thought to be unconstitutional is like participating in a plot to defraud people of their cash (like the MSM banking all the campaign advertising fees that would otherwise have not been spent).
-PJ
No, not all disorders are permanent or identified as permanent. The best you could argue is that treatment should be covered by some insurance plans.
“No, not all disorders are permanent or identified as permanent.”
Mental disorders, even those deemed to be temporary are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So therefore, if you want to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, you will also have to grant gays protection under ADA which prohibits discrimination.
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.