Prop. 8 ruling ignores precedent, evidence and common sense

Washington Post ^ | By Edwin Meese III

[TruthHound]

Even some who support same-sex marriage worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned. Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its result.

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings.

[TruthHound]

Read the whole article. By far the most scathing and intellectual critique of the agenda-driven ruling which had NO legal foundation.

By any measure of clear-thinking application of established law, this gay judge's ruling should be thrown out on appeal.

[circlecity]

I is soooo bad I’m now thinking the 9th Circuit will try to find a way to reverse it on procedural grounds in order to keep the Supremes from being able to attack it on the merits. Perhaps that explains the panel’s specific request that attorneys address the standing issue.

[Beaten Valve]

I still want to know how my voting on Prop. 8 means that I have no standing?

[Dilbert San Diego]

I have yet to hear anyone address this aspect of the issue:

1. The judge ruled that it is against federal law for a state to define marriage as one man and one woman.

2. Federal law defines marriage as a man and a woman.

3. The judge overturned a California state consitutional amendment defining marriage, but the amendment agrees to existing federal law.

4. The judge did not overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

So, if it’s against federal law for a state to define marriage in accordance with federal law, how can a federal judge let that federal law stand but overturn the state law?

I haven’t heard anybody discuss this, but I think it’s an important point.

[arthurus]

This opinion is arbitrary and capricious

and will stand because California will not appeal it because Arnold wants the destruction of family to proceed apace.

[fwdude]

I still want to know how my voting on Prop. 8 means that I have no standing?

Haven't you been told? "Homophobes" don't have any right to standing.

[tophat9000]

This opinion is arbitrary and capricious and will stand because California will not appeal it because Arnold wants the destruction of family to proceed apace.

California not appealing was the plan all along...however because Walker's ruling would apply to all states, any state should have standing to appeal