-
Player of the Week
June 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Bart Brightman vs. The 50 Ft. Democrats
June 5, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Time for Gawker to Put Up or Shut Up
May 29, 2013 | 27 comments
-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
Another Perspective
In Defense of Judge Walker
His reasoning is what is at issue.
I find myself troubled by the aspersions cast by some conservatives towards U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker following his decision to overturn California Proposition 8 last week. What I find most troubling is the commentary directed towards Walker’s sexual orientation or rather his purported sexual orientation.
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said of Judge Walker, “Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to The San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, also made similar remarks. During an appearance on the CBS Sunday show Face the Nation, Perkins stated, “What you have is one judge, a district level judge, and an openly homosexual judge at that, who says he knows better than not only than seven millions voters in the State of California but voters in thirty states across the nation.” When guest host John Dickerson challenged Perkins on whether Walker is actually openly gay, Perkins replied, “Well, that according to the San Francisco Chronicle that he is openly homosexual.”
Both Gallagher and Perkins are incorrect. The San Francisco Chronicle article in question does not identify Judge Walker as being “openly gay.” The article, written by Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross in February 2010, states that a number of unnamed gay politicians and lawyers in San Francisco who know Walker make the observation that he “has never taken pains to disguise — or advertise — his orientation.” In fact, Matier and Ross note that Walker declined to comment about his sexual orientation when they asked him about it. If one declines to state one’s sexual orientation when asked it is a fairly good indication the person in question is not openly gay.
Nonetheless, opponents of Prop 8 feared that Walker’s purported sexual orientation would be raised by supporters of Prop 8 if he were to declare it unconstitutional. Later in the article, Andy Pugno, the General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com (the proponents of Prop 8), said Judge Walker’s purported sexual orientation would not become public fodder. Pugno stated, “We’re not going to say anything about that.” It is a shame that neither Gallagher nor Perkins followed Pugno’s prudent advice.
But suppose Gallagher and Perkins are correct in stating that Judge Walker is gay (even if he is not openly so.) If they are prepared to use Judge Walker’s sexual orientation as a means by which to publicly question his judicial integrity then they ought to be prepared to question the judicial integrity of a Catholic who has a case concerning child sexual abuse by a priest come before her or question the judicial integrity of an Evangelical Christian who has a case concerning the placement of The Ten Commandments in the public square come before him. Yet I cannot imagine for a second that they would and nor should they. The only circumstance under which a jurist’s religious persuasion, sexual orientation, etc., should become relevant is if he or she were to make a public comment outside the courtroom that would compromise their ability to adjudicate the case before them in a fair and impartial manner.
This isn’t to say that Judge Walker is beyond criticism. A higher court might very well overturn his decision. But if a higher court does overturn Walker’s ruling it will be because of factual and legal flaws inside his 136-page decision, not because of how he lives his life outside the courtroom. Just as I think it is wrong to read things into Arizona’s immigration law that aren’t there I think it is equally wrong to read things that aren’t in Judge Walker’s ruling.
But don’t Gallagher and Perkins have other valid arguments? When Gallagher and Perkins commented on Walker’s purported sexual orientation they did so in the context of arguing that his opinion should not outweigh the opinions of the millions of Californians who voted in favor of Prop 8 in November 2008. Yet one can make this argument without making Judge Walker’s purported sexual orientation an issue as Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, had the good sense to do when he wrote about Walker’s ruling:
In his decision, the judge issued 80 “findings of fact.” All said findings and all said facts happen to support his belief that Proposition 8 was so errant that a bolt of lightning should have struck it from the ballot. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Judge Walker is right. In that case, he and like-minded people should come up with, say, Proposition 9 overturning the ban and persuade 50.1 percent of Californians to support it. How difficult can that be given that, per Judge Walker, every single fact is on their side?
But is Lowry suggesting that the outcome of a popular referendum is beyond judicial scrutiny? Is Lowry suggesting that individuals who have their rights abridged as a result of Prop 8 cannot redress their grievances and seek relief from the courts as Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo did when they brought this lawsuit? I don’t recall any objection from Lowry when the National Rifle Association sued the village of Oak Park, Illinois in 2008 for its handgun ban which was approved by referendum in 1984.
As for holding a Proposition 9 to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage, Walker cites West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision which states, “other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” There is an excellent debate to be had as to whether it is appropriate to use referenda when determining who can and cannot marry.
If my fellow conservatives wish to disagree with Judge Walker’s ruling then their objections should be directed towards what transpires inside his courtroom, not his bedroom.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (126) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/11/in-defense-of-judge-walker
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- A Panoply of Beauties
- Gerry Ford at 100
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike G| 8.11.10 @ 7:01AM
Sorry Mr. Goldstein, but the question is: Would judge Walker, if a homosexual, gain from his decision. Would he then be able to marry his male partner? Your Catholic and Evangelical examples dont' hold water.
John II| 8.11.10 @ 9:55AM
First post, Mike, and you save me the trouble of responding in a way that would doubtless have been unnecessarily longwinded. Mr. Goldstein's analogy is astonishingly lame.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 10:22AM
I don't mind if gays marry, but as Henry VIII said,
"any man who marries when he can be single is a fool."
And Hank knew what he was talking about.
John II| 8.11.10 @ 11:51AM
On the other hand, Hank helped get the ball rolling on a centuries-long, Protestant-inspired "progressive" degradation of marriage from something sacred to something merely institutional to something utterly fungible.
Without that antecedent degradation, the absurdity of same-sex marriage would be obvious even to one so enlightened as you, Alan.
And now back to the 1950 Spencer Tracy version of "Father of the Bride," soon to be remade into a new Tom Hanks version: "Sperm Donor of the Partner."
Ryan| 8.11.10 @ 2:42PM
I don't think that Henry was inspired by his religion to divorce.
And we're not the ones who annul marriages with children.
John II| 8.11.10 @ 5:24PM
I suppose you could say he was inspired by his divorce to start his own religion. The rest followed.
Whoa. Which sect of Catholics permits children to marry? I hadn't heard that one before.
S.L. Toddard| 8.11.10 @ 8:19PM
Haha. Still a wise-guy!
Jim Buzzell | 8.15.10 @ 3:32PM
What does the bible say about same sex marriages?
Toolbag| 8.11.10 @ 4:20PM
If a judge has something to gain from a decision they should recuse themselves right? Then no judge can sit in on a Civil Rights case. They would be deciding on thoer own rights as well as the rest of the country. If he had a financial or personal relationship with either of the litigants he would have to recuse himself.
Jonathan M.| 8.11.10 @ 6:21PM
No, just no black judge should be allowed to sit on a Civil Rights case, for obvious reasons. And no ass-humpers should be allowed to sit in a case that deals with the "marriage" which his hell-destined self doesn't deserve.
RCV| 8.12.10 @ 9:28PM
And rich people who pay a lot of taxes should not sit on cases challenging taxes. I guess women shouldn't be allowed on abortion cases. Oh, an Christians shouldn't be allowed to hear cases involving the right to include Christian prayer in schools.
Ted| 8.11.10 @ 7:45PM
He would only gain from his decision if he actually planned to get married to another man, and if he had intended to do that then he would have simply used the 1-year window of opportunity during which gay marriage was previously legal in California prior to the passage of Proposition 8. What's more, considering that a key argument of the defendants (the Proposition 8 supporters) in their case was that heterosexual marriage and relationships are harmed by allowing gay marriage, then it stands to reason that any straight judge would have something to gain by allowing Proposition 8 to stand on those merits (or more precisely something to lose by striking it down).
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 3:20AM
Oh come on. You don't think Judge Walker isn't motivated even a little by a "take that, you homophobes" attitude?
This whole article is assinine. Walker, had he any character or integrity, would have recused himself.
We're talking about our children and our country's morality, which is a whole hell of a lot more important than whether or not Ted Olson and Judge Walker "win" this case.
When oh when is Christendom going to rise up and stand its ground. Or is it going to remain cowed by a bunch of pissant communist sophists who think they're going to drag our country into the gutter for keeps?
Jeff| 8.12.10 @ 3:06AM
If Judge Walker were a straight man and upheld the ban, couldn't the gay community use the same arguement - that he did so to gain from his decision (i.e. to protect traditional marriage)?
Shirley| 8.12.10 @ 5:50AM
Is everyone missing the most important question that should be asked? How does a Judge get the authority to dismiss the fact that millions of Californians voted for this Proposition 8? Am I the only one who asks this question? Isn't that what needs to be addressed? Why go to the polls if a Judge can take away your vote?
Ted| 8.12.10 @ 1:23PM
It's called the Supremacy Clause. Look it up.
Lee| 8.11.10 @ 7:15AM
When a judge has a vested interest in the outcome of a case, they must recuse themselves.
A judge whose spouse sits on the board of directors of a company cannot try a case for or against that company. Such would be a conflict of interest.
More disturbing in this case is the fact the 7 million people voted on something, the California Supreme Court upheld it, and this judge told them all to take a hike.
Louis Jenkins| 8.11.10 @ 9:10AM
Lee, you are right on target. But can a heterosexual judge not be critized in the same fashion? Obviously 7 million people is a big factor here, and to throw their decision to the wind is unreasonable. What's more is they have domestic pardner stipulations in California, which allows all the privileges and benefits of marriage. I'm in favor of Prop 8, but just asking.
Thomas Whittaker| 8.11.10 @ 8:33PM
A heterosexual judge would not have any vested interest in the outcome of the case, only an ideological interest, which is ok. If he himself wanted to use it to get married, that would be a conflict of interest.
The people who are saying it's bad just because he's gay, they have no argument though.
Jeff| 8.12.10 @ 3:11AM
If Judge Walker were a straight man and upheld the ban, couldn't the gay community use the same arguement - that he did so to gain from his decision (i.e. to protect traditional marriage)?
Steve| 8.11.10 @ 7:55AM
A lot of high-minded hairsplitting going on here, Aaron. Oh, that the Left observed the same lofty standards to which you hold your side. As per the two generations past, Aaron, you would have your side bring a sharpened popsicle stick to a gun fight. Screw that.
At this point, any weapon that comes to hand is fair to use, including the watery-eyed sexual orientation of Judge Walker. This is war, son. Get used to it.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:31AM
I agree, all is fair in war. But it cuts all ways--
I am at war with those would give us another four or eight years of another RINO.
This is war, son. Get used to it.
Trebuchet| 8.11.10 @ 8:39AM
Judge Walker can bake a turd in his oven but it won't make it a biscut
ferengi | 8.11.10 @ 9:13AM
Mr Goldstein ,
There is NO defense for such naked political judicl activism on Judge Walkers part. Go to National Review Online and they have blown the lid off Judge walkers biased, juducal activist setup. He was clearly and arrogantly setting this sham decision up to be the Scopes/Roe vs Wade/Texas sodomy show scam of the 21st century.
His lack of objectivitity, clear bias and political activism from the bench are at issue here - his sexual orientation was only the foundation for his bias.
He should have recused himself because he is neither competent nor objective enough to be on the bench to hear any case at all.
He is an emporer in a robe.
Grant Johnson| 8.11.10 @ 9:59AM
No, the issue is not his sexuality, and this article is insincere . Rather his reported homosexuality explains his relentlessly biased conduct throughout the trial, with his strenuous efforts to impugn the motives of Prop 8 backers and his illegal machinations to turn his courtroom into a televised daytime drama (starring himself, of course). His ruling surprised no one, and the reasoning in the ruling was merely an obligatory step to pronounce the result he had all too obviously fixed on before the trial began.
Having such bias in a case, he should have recused himself. As he did not, he should be fired (ie impeached), not because the outcome was disagreeable, not because he is gay, but because he so obviously failed to honor his oath of office and the requirement of judicial impartiality.
FERENGI | 8.11.10 @ 10:02AM
Grant Johnson
Very well said sir.
Darrragh| 8.11.10 @ 12:29PM
I totally agree. Let's be real. I live in Maine where there has been so much bitterness over the gay marriage issue. There is still division between the "two Maine's." The thing that irritates me is censorship around even saying that Maine has become somewhat of a lesbian mecca--with many gay women moving to Maine in the past 30 years, which helps to drive the debate. You're not allowed to even say that gay women are in positions of power and have helped drive the gay marriage agenda because of their influence with the Democrats. It's the same censorship in this case.
Dan Hirsch| 8.11.10 @ 10:14AM
Two men or two women cannot marry any more than a dead person can speak. The language and the culture have defined marriage as a man and a woman for milleniA. No one is denied a "right to marry" if they try to "marry" another of their own sex. They are free to marry any member of the opposite sex who will have them.
If two men or two women want to form a union to combine assets, they may do so. The homosexuals do have a right to contract their living arrangements if they so choose. But they can no more marry than pigs can fly. That they are trying to get some judge to say they can and he accommodates their nonsensical request as Judge Walker has done, is ultimately meaningless.
However, I am going sue in federal court to be a concert pianist. I can't play three notes, but the judge can make it so with an order. Where's my lawyers phone number?
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 10:18AM
I'm not exactly a Scalia-type,
however Aaron's premise for this article was not well thought out, not for an obvious pro such as Aaron.
I'll bet a dime to every donut that Aaron graduated Law School or at least attended for a year. If politicians and attorneys all disappeared tomorrow morning, the sky would appear bluer, and the sun would seem brighter.
Believer| 8.11.10 @ 5:46PM
Alan Brooks-"If all politicians and attorneys disappeared tomorrow morning the sky would appear bluer and the sun would seem brighter."Yes thats true until voters could get the next bunch of lame politicians in office and Graduate the next class of bottom feeders to defend our Constitution.
John II| 8.11.10 @ 5:51PM
What's a "Scalia-type"? Is that a kind of donut? Besides, I'm old enough to remember when a standard glazed donut cost a nickel, in which era "dime to every donut" might make sense to indicate a sure bet--but today who would put a 65-cent donut up against a dime?
I don't understand the expression. If it's merely anachronistic, couldn't it be rescued by a slight change: a buck to every donut, maybe? Or am I misconstruing the sense?
Sorry for the importunity, but I need to keep up on this sort of thing; it's part of my job description.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:54PM
Well, say, a dime for every donut in the world.
But there is no science about it.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:58PM
"I'll bet a dime to every donut"
or "a penny for your thoughts"
John II| 8.11.10 @ 9:35PM
Okay--I've been researching this issue. According to my Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook of Universal Knowledge (a 17-page pamphlet which contains answers to all questions), the "dime to donut" expression, which goes back at least 100 years, means "something of value wagered against something worthless."
My instincts served me well, then. The expression should herewith be revised to "a fiver for a donut," which will hold for another century, one hopes, against the inevitable Obama-caused inflation of the currency.
Again, I apologize for the offhand importunity, when I had the Guidebook virtually at my fingertips. The Guidebook knows all.
It's amazing how far afield these posts get from the topic of the original post, whatever it was.
Jeremiah| 8.11.10 @ 10:58AM
Indeed a rather poorly though-out article. The reasoning behind Judge Walker's decision was so obviously poor and detached from any legitimate Constitutional Theory and precedent that one has to question his motivation.
Let me give you a different take from a Catholic perspective. If I were a judge and made a ruling on a dispute between a local parish and the town and the ruling was closely reasoned, adhering to normal jurisprudence, and fit the facts involved in the case, any disparaging reference to my Catholicism would be a simple smear attempt by the disappointed party.
If, however, in another case, I abandoned reason altogether, cited in my finding of fact only such experts as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc and airily dismissed any experts who held a counter view and then held the astonishingly novel interpretation that the Constitution requires all residents of the town to attend Mass every Sunday one might fairly claim that I was acting as an intemperate religious activist rather than a judge.
That is why Walker's sexual orientation has come into such a prominent role. This was an activist's diatribe masquerading as law. And the judge didn't bother to wear much of a mask, at that.
When one posits a 'living Constitution' it is inevitable that law will degenerate into a battle of activists. Once that obtains, legal reasoning is a flimsy veil over a particular judge's activism. Activist judges, by definition, breed contempt for the judiciary. When judges decisions are not based on law, but torture the law to produce the result their flavor of activism prefers, not only is it inevitable that observers will go to motivation, it is rational.
Solon| 8.11.10 @ 11:03AM
The Romans said "Man is to Man like a Wolf." There are similar sayings in most cultures all of which predate Hobbs. We need law! Happily our laws are constrained by natural law and rights. Natural law speaks against same sex marriage. The question is: "Is the marriage Rite a Right?" The Judge thinks so and has written a well argued opinion to that point. Higher courts will determine if his "evidence" demonstrates that same sex marriage is a Right. NOW our basic principle is that Rights trump laws. Rights trump referenda Don't be too quick to reject this notion lest you have to face "Judge Lynch" some day
JP| 8.11.10 @ 12:01PM
The fact that the judge is gay does not automatically keep him from litigating the case. Maggie is wrong on that one. Should all married hetro's on the SCOTUS be prohibited from hearing the case?
My problme with the judge's ruling is simple. His legal opinion took up 128 pages, of which only 8 pages actually dealt with the constitutional questions at hand. Also, many of his "points of fact" were nonsense. To say that it is a proven fact that society has "evolved" to some higher plane which allows for gay marriage is absurd. At best, it is only Judge Walker's opinion. Most of his "findings" were nothing but partisan grandstanding gussied up as "social science".
California already has a civil unions statute which essiential confers all of the legal benefits of private marriage. Prop 8 only prohibits gay couples from being "married". The distinction is only a religious one, which the Constitution allows for. But gay couples receive who marry in civil ceremonies are in fact "married" as far as the state of Cali is concerned -it's just not called that. The Judge's opinion is about as absurd as the idea of 2 same sex couples wishing to receive a religious sacrement, which used to be called the Sacrement of Matrimony - or more precisely, the Making of Mothers.
ROBERT Harkins| 8.11.10 @ 3:07PM
Respectfully, the equivalence you suggest is not accurate. That the judge is homosexual is relevant to bias and is bias as the group of which he is a part are seeking the legitimization of a life style rejected by every culture both Western and Eastern. While it is truth that some cultures Greece for example, tended to look the other way, no culture anywhere has welcomed homosexual marriage. The opposite, of course, is true.
The judge should have been disqualified. As he has not made a mockery of the Constitution he should be impeached.
Ted| 8.11.10 @ 8:08PM
The distinction is not only a religious one if it's a matter of the law.
Pete| 8.11.10 @ 12:33PM
Odd, when I looked up Walker a few weeks ago, the Wikipedia entry called him openly gay. That same page no longer makes that claim. Coincidence?
JJ| 8.11.10 @ 1:02PM
Hey, black folks overwhelmingly supported Prop 8, and now some white man overturnes it! Racist!
traditionalist| 8.11.10 @ 1:03PM
Judge Walker is an amazing person. He can see into the hearts of the majority of Californians who through an open democratic process decided that the state use the term marriage with regards to same sex couples. Judge Walker can see that those millions of people voted in the way that they did ONLY because they are religious bigots. I am glad that we have judges that can read the minds of millions.
He states that those with a religious viewpoint should not participate in political discourse. Obviously that is what the founding fathers wanted.
George F.| 8.11.10 @ 2:34PM
Good grief! You've sold your soul to the Father of all Lies! How horrible.
Joli| 8.11.10 @ 10:13PM
I think he was being sarcastic--and I think he meant to use "that the state CANNOT use the term marriage..."
Derek Leaberry| 8.11.10 @ 1:29PM
Homosexuality is immoral and dishonorable. Thus we can describe Judge Walker. He has no business in a courtroom as a judge as he is not fit to judge anything. And so are his "conservative" defenders like Mr. Goldstein and Philip Klein. Neo-conservatism has always been a cancer in the conservative body politic. With the civil war neo-conservatives have declared on cultural conservatives and Christianity, it is high time to oust neo-conservatives from the conservative movement. They are as much the enemy as Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Pete II | 8.11.10 @ 2:29PM
I supported Prop. 8 because I do not feel that marriage needed re-defining: the union of one man and one woman. As such, every man and woman have the same equal right to marry, with a few reasonable and prudent exceptions, based on sex, age, species etc. Society made very reasonable alternative civil unions for same-sexers, but that just wasn't enough, was it? So without any valid constitutional argument, this judge has invalidated the will of the people to keep traditional marriage as just that. And having heard of the judge's orientation, did anyone have ANY doubt as to what the verdict would be?
Bill| 8.11.10 @ 2:31PM
Arguing against Judge Walker's decision on the basis that Judge Walker himself is a homosexual is an ad hominem attack.
However, his argument is largely devoid of rigor, whether his homosexuality affected that argument or not.
A practice (marriage limited to heterosexuals) that has universally excluded homosexuals throughout the world at all known times is a practice whose legitimacy is entitled to considerable respect. Overthrowing it deserves a better argument than "It's just one moral view and no longer deserves society's respect."
I always thought that the person making an assertion (i.e., that Proposition 8 -a state constitutional amendment- is unconstitutional) bore the burden of proving that assertion, and that a judge owed to all parties to enunciate a logical and intellectually respectable holding.
Apparently not any longer, at least in the Ninth Circuit.
Morey Garelick| 8.11.10 @ 4:48PM
The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the state action burdens a fundamental right or treats similarly situated individuals dissimilarly. The burden then shifts to the state actor (or proponent, in this case) to show that the action is appropriately tailored to serve a state interest. "Rational basis" is the most lenient level of scrutiny of the state interest.
ROBERT | 8.11.10 @ 5:06PM
The Rational Basis Test was in the beginning conceived and rightly so, to give a kind of presumption of legitimacy to legislative acts. So for example, when a state legislature condemned a piece of shore land to preserve the natural beauty of the beach habitat and a developer discovered that the beachfront property he had purchased and sort to develop, appealed to the Supreme Court it found the legislature's act had a rational basis even though the developer was given the shaft.
The development of the rational basis test demonstrated a phenomenon the Founders feared, one that was typical of democracies. The longer they exist the less regard they have for property rights. The same argument was raised in Kelo allowing government's expropriation of property not for a public use as mandated by the Constitution but for a private use that coincidentally increase the city tax base.
The rational basis test when applied to the setting aside of the votes, twice done, of seven million people, so as to impose upon an unwilling nation acceptance of a deviant and dangerous lifestyle is n outraged to our moral and rational sense.
Frankly, while the plaintiff should have failed strictly upon the deviance of his theory there is a far greater evil that Mr. Arenstein has not even thought to address and for which reason I also think he does libels conservatives by claiming to be a conservative himself.
1. The Prohibition forever of freedom of conscience.
2. The abolishment of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (A Mass. statute offered and quickly withdrew when discovered a statute which provided up to a year in jail and a thousand dollar fine for an expression criticism of homosexual conduct.
3. The homosexual lobby is proposing with President O'Bama's support a resolution in the UN would again criminalize Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of speech.
The only other group seeking similar legislation are Islamic terrorists.
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 3:39AM
Yes. One would think that 50 centuries of PRECEDENT in favor of traditional marriage would carry some weight. Perhaps it's merely a case of precedent for thee but not for me.
You know, I see a whole stream of lawyer/judge jokes emerging out of this. Ah yes, ridicule; a very fine weapon indeed.
2Anglico| 8.11.10 @ 2:38PM
The judge thinks he can read our minds, why can't we read his?
Bill| 8.11.10 @ 2:55PM
We can read Judge Walker's mind, by reading his holding in the Proposition 8 case.
And a mighty superficial and illogical mind it seems to be, at least on this subject.
ROBERT | 8.11.10 @ 2:58PM
Dear Mr. Arenstein,
You work a pernicious libel on the word "conservative" by describing yourself as one. Your article is a mash of insipid, sentimental and post modern politically correct trash that is even as I write dismantling reason as it is destroying American civilization. Let me count the ways,
1. The homosexual judge, whether or not he wishes to out himself, demonstrates a bias, indeed, a militarism that is common to a group which seeks the destruction of a constitution, the criminalization of speech critical of their life style and the abolition of freedom of conscience. Indeed, the homosexual with President O'Bama's assistance is seeking the ramming through of laws that will compel the American people into acceptance of a homosexual dogma rejected by every civilization, western and eastern. The only exception is Sparta, a city state of homosexual pedaphiles who compelled male offspring into homosexual practices starting in their adolescent years.
The judge knew what his decision was gong to be before he convened the trial. His findings of fact as you describe them are not facts but a coterie of homosexual dogma held by homosexuals to which "experts" so called, sympathetic to the lifestyle have given it a pass.
2. The judge has made a mockery of the constitution and the democratic process. If the Constitution stands for the proposition alleged by this judge, then the Constitution will also compel Americans to accept the woman hood of a male sufficiently psychotic to engage in self mutilation and the dosing of his body and mind with massive and dangerous concentrations of estrogen. That being the case I defy anyone to name a theory that cannot be legitimized by the Constitution, however irrational as homosexuality.
3. I'm not sure what your legal background is. But the only testimony offered was in the form of Expert Opinion. Expert opinions are not facts; they are opinions. Their opinion that children will not be damaged when raised in a homosexual setting is based on the dogma that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal one. There is a risk that children so raised with be propagandized into the theory that homosexuality is not only normal as claimed but safe when, in fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, its chief attraction, anal intercourse, is simply the most dangerous practice extant. This aberrant past time, which is the single distinguishing essences of homosexuality, has spread sexually transmitted diseases not seen since the middle age and, of course, is the prime factor in the contamination of homosexual and straight individuals with the lethal and incurable disease known as AIDS.
Soon NAMBLA will begin a push for "intergenerational marriage" i.e. the right to marry an adolescent male child.
Once this too becomes the norm in this gradually sickening society, I have no doubt you will write a similar supportive article regarding those who object to this perversion as well.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion however grotesque but please do not engage in the infamous falsehood that you are a conservative.
ROBERT
Pete| 8.11.10 @ 5:59PM
Have to agree, especially with the final point. Wonder if our rulers, those who appoint themselves to our new federal health panels, will decide to levy an extra tax on homosexuals to cover their outsized health costs? We already tax other things in this manner like tobacco and soda, right?
The truth is that this is part of the progressive playbook to undermine the family and create more government dependency. A strong family that supports and nurtures itself across generations is the #1 threat (guns being #2) to their existence.
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 3:47AM
Pete: excellent reply to ROBERT's post, itself a model of reason and TRUE.
Destroy the family. Destroy Christianity. Destroy the country.
Oh yes; reminds me of this:
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality." Karl Marx
RCV| 8.12.10 @ 9:45PM
Karl Marx was a hapless enough failure without having to use misleading quotes. The quote in question appears in The Communist Manifesto, but it's in quotation marks, and Marx is quoting what critics of communism say in attacking it. The quote is followed with a sentence that begins, "The accusation ...".
As I said, Marx was a demonstrable fool, but you don't need to distort the record to prove that. You might check out the original source next time before you repeat a purported quote from a secondary source.
Jorge| 8.11.10 @ 3:06PM
Amazing Aaron, Your logic and lack thereof is a credit to your name. I won't be reading any more of your trash in the future.
Joe D| 8.11.10 @ 4:14PM
Aaron Goldstein - GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE! The man is openly gay and that was an obvious reason he twisted the constitution to strike down the law. He is dead wrong about the constitution and this will harm society at large and Children in particular. There is plenty of studies for you to choose from, so I will not take my precious time and do your work for you.
Jeff| 8.17.10 @ 2:14AM
Exactly what posts are you referring to? The one's done in the 1950's?? Why don't you crawl out from under that rock you've been living in and come into the 21st century.
Let's just hope that those children that you refer to will grow up with an education and won't be so ignorant as some of you who have posted on here.
Tim*| 8.11.10 @ 5:52PM
Interesting , that the Canadian Dude Goldstein decides to drag Catholics and Evangelical Christians into the discussion , but not his own religion .
Ian| 8.17.10 @ 2:49AM
Probably because his religion is not discrimating bigoted racists who want this country dictated on the basis of their relgious beliefs.
Dan| 8.11.10 @ 6:17PM
I'm going to go ahead and guess, based on this article, that neither Mr. Goldstein nor anyone who has made a comment in this thread has ever gone to law school (or at least, not a law school ranked in the top 20 or 30 in the country).
Really, the amount of ignorance, naivete, and idiocy in this thread is astounding.
LawStudent| 8.11.10 @ 6:39PM
It has been shown that law school ranking has very little to do with success as a lawyer. Grades are the single best indicator.
Robert| 8.11.10 @ 8:29PM
Guess again, Law School. Service as a judge, trial lawyer total 33 years.
I'm not sure what you mean by top 15; these are probably the worse, because like Harvard they have fallen pray to a post modern ideology that specializes in cultural despair and chaos.
Dan| 8.11.10 @ 11:47PM
"I'm not sure what you mean by top 15; these are probably the worse, because like Harvard they have fallen pray to a post modern ideology that specializes in cultural despair and chaos"
Yeah, based on this statement I'm going to go ahead and say you probably haven't done too much in your legal career. At what level were you a judge? (And where?) What firm(s) have you been employed at? Your reading comprehension and writing skills (and your laughably naive and antediluvian thinking about what the top law schools teach) seem to indicate a pretty feeble mind.
LawStudent - with logical reasoning and inference skills like that, it's not a surprise that you're at whatever crappy school you're at.
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 3:59AM
Dan: what a pompous little pedant you reveal yourself to be. Of course ordinary people, people without legal pedigrees, are totally incapable -- you would have us believe -- of making rational judgments about a legal case. You do know, of course, that even judges disagree about the Constitutionality of a given case, witness the numerous 4-5 SCOTUS decisions.
It's a shame too, that in all your supposed learning you failed to learn civility. You really do need to get a handle on your emotions. Displaying them with such abandon does absolutely nothing for your credibility.
LawStudent| 8.12.10 @ 8:21AM
@ Dan
You have no idea where I go to school or what my class rank is.
My comment was not based on any personal logical reasoning or inference (and you would have known that if you possessed those powers in proportion to your fragile ego). My comment was based on scholarly abstract that was recently written. Here is a link to a portion of the abstract: http://volokh.com/2010/08/10/d.....gh-ranked/
Dan, are you a lawyer?
Bill| 8.12.10 @ 9:54AM
Does a person have to be a law school graduate to comment on this forum? How elitist and unAmerican.
P.S. My law school is (last time I was interested enough to look) ranked No. 38 nationally, and I have practiced law for 33 years. Although I have not been a judge, I have made it past the nominating committees and gotten as far as being one of the finalists and interviewed by the chief executive for the position, so I would venture to assert that I am considered above-average in my legal skills and knowledge.
LawStudent| 8.11.10 @ 6:37PM
Being Catholic or Evangelical is a form of spiritual expression, not a disordered sexual behavior. Horrible attempt at an analogy.
Tim*| 8.11.10 @ 6:43PM
However this dude did , Sport .
Robert George of the American Principles Project made a characteristically cogent argument, culminating with a call to action:
" As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand. "
Robert P. George - Dr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. One of America's foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy, he has won numerous awards for his academic and civic work, including the Presidential Citizens Medal. He has served on the President's Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. He is the author or editor of many books, including Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality and The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Morality, and Religion in Crisis, and co-author of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.
el polacko| 8.11.10 @ 8:03PM
one need look no further than the comments posted here to see how gay citizens are marginalized and oppressed in society. such nasty, vile statements regarding good people not of your acquaintance !
what is so difficult to understand about "equal protection under the law"? i don't care if the judge was a purple quadrisexual, the unconstitutionality of prop 8 was evident from day one. in court, supporters of the marriage ban had no evidence why their position was correct other than that the whole idea made 'em feel kinda icky. well, that's not a reason to deny a sizeable portion of society their equal treatment from the state. walker's decision was spot-on.
Robert | 8.11.10 @ 8:33PM
Marginalized? Really, Income and education in the homosexual community vastly exceed the norm as does Howard Zinn's educational background who has recently be exposed as a communist and a liar.
This question. The "Marginalized Homosexual lobby" is seeking the criminalization of free speech. Do you agree that criticism of the homosexual life should expose you to indictment, criminal prosecution and jail. If your answer is yes how to you square your answer to the First Amendment.
John II| 8.11.10 @ 9:56PM
Bad reasoning, Lackie. Sentimental and self-indulgent too. That's the basic problem with homosexuality. Freud regarded the condition as a form of infantilism, but a more interesting take on homosexuality was proffered many years ago (1920's) by Somerset Maugham, who was himself homosexual in an era when homosexuals were more capable of thinking clearly, thanks in part to the discipline of residual social stigma.
The novelist's main point is that homosexuals generally are troubled by a deep lack of seriousness. They can be very self-serious, but not truly serious in the manner of normalcy--and they envy the heterosexual majority (roughly 98 percent of the general population, contrary to the compulsive lies of homosexual activists) for their seemingly easy seriousness about serious matters.
For evidence of Maugham's shrewd and honest insight, reread your own post.
Jeff| 8.17.10 @ 2:47AM
You're referring to studies done almost 100 years ago. We are a constantly evolving society and certainly can't hold on to something from a hundred (or even 200) years ago. If you want society to be referenced to studies and laws from the 1920's, then the least of your concerns will be same sex marriages.
Petronius| 8.12.10 @ 2:40AM
There are moral and cultural imperatives that define a real American. We are honest industrious and virtuous. We are NOT predators, perverts or parasites. All who practice the latter behaviors should not be allowed to live here.
I'd settle for walling off California west of the Sierra Nevada, ceding it to the miscreants, and renaming it Perversia.
RCV| 8.12.10 @ 4:33PM
Since five other states, including Iowa, now sanction gay marriage, your wall will be pretty zig-baggy when you're done.
S.L. Toddard| 8.11.10 @ 8:15PM
I wish it were not so, but I think the judge was on solid constitutional ground. The problem is not this judge, it's the 14th Amendment, the ratification of which has had disastrous consequences for our country. It is not pleasant to admit it, but this is a problem that will take an amendment to solve. The 14th Amendment established the ruling elite in Washington as supreme over the more local and representative state governments. It made birthright citizenship the law of the land. And lastly it guaranteed "equal protection". That this phrase can be interpreted in such profoundly different, contradictory ways is proof that the question should be handled at the most local level possible. The 14th took that question away from the people and made it law that Washington would decide what "equal" means, The ruling elite in Washington decides, rather than the people Iowa. Washington tells you when you're "equal" enough, rather than the people of Georgia deciding for themselves.
The 14th Amendment ceded too much power to Washington. Read it, then ask yourself what the liberal ideal of "equality" is, and then tell me that judge didn't interpret that clause in good faith. It's not the judge - it's the law. It should never have come before him. It should not be a matter of federal concern. Each state has its own constitution guaranteeing the rights of the people. If Californians decide not to redefine the word and institution of marriage then what right should the federal government have to tell them different? Answer: none. But they do, in large part because of the 14th.
Vic| 8.12.10 @ 2:16AM
Equal protection does not compel states to issue drivers licenses to blind people, or to those who can't otherwise pass the tests. Besides, anyone, including gays can marry someone of the opposite sex. They have not been deprived of equal opportunity to enter into the contract.
The institution of marriage was designed to protect potential posterity, not the parties involved. This excludes gays by nature.
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 4:12AM
Your reading of the 14th regarding birthright citizenship is flawed. The 14th Amendment conferred citizenship upon people who were under the jurisdiction of the U.S., as all former slaves had been. But if a German couple , for example, travels to America to visit and a baby is born to them here, the couple is NOT under the jurisdiction of the U.S. but of Germany. They are German citizens, and should anything "bad" happen to them here, the German government would be right to demand a reckoning.
The Amendment lacks definitive clarity, for sure; but I think it has been misused to achieve several goals for which it was never intended. But that's another topic.
Harry S| 8.11.10 @ 8:21PM
"Judge Walker can bake a turd in his oven but it won't make it a biscut "
Priceless...
RCV| 8.12.10 @ 4:29PM
If you're in seventh grade, maybe.
Paul| 8.11.10 @ 8:30PM
Isn't the very concept of a sexual "orientation" contrary to the view of social conservatives that homosexual acts are merely bad behavior (or sin, if you will)?
Padoux| 8.11.10 @ 9:47PM
I don't care if the jusge has sex with animals, he is dead wrong on finding that the age old institution of marriage founded to foster the rearing of children and prevent sexual chaos in the family violates the rights of gays who wish to "marry." That institution had no such purpose, gays did not factor in to its' evolution. Yeah, our ancestors said, "let's screw gays and make marriage only between men and women." It AINT slavery or Jim Crow and IF it is to be changed it should be done only by a vote of the people in each state not one judge, gay, straight, bisexual, pedophile, pervert, flasher, or a sissy,
Marc Jeric| 8.12.10 @ 12:36AM
A union of homosexuals or lesbians is now called "marriage"? By the same logic an old widow enamored of her cat could also "marry" it; or a Berber could "marry" his camel. Marriage is designed to produce offspring - future taxpayers and soldiers, and that is the marriage is entitled to special benefits.
Jeff| 8.12.10 @ 3:51AM
How ignorant are you really? You're trying to compare the rights of a human being (gay or otherwise) to that of an animal like a cat or camel??? There is no logic in that. The constitution protects marriage for ALL citizens - the key word there being c-i-t-i-z-e-n-s not animals.
And if marriage was soley designed to produce offspring, does that mean that all straight couples who don't have kids should not be considered married and be punished for it? What if a homosexual couple adopts children? They have just "produced offspring" that could be future taxpayers or soldiers.
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 4:19AM
Jeff: Marriage is given special rights because it CAN produce children; that it sometimes fails to do so does not make the granting of those special rights unfair if not bestowed upon other partnerships.
The idea is that society is fostering a good thing, the promotion of stable families for the preservation of a healthy society. The only purpose of passing laws that weaken traditional marriage is ultimately to weaken society. Now, I wonder why anyone would want to do that?
Jeff| 8.12.10 @ 5:10AM
Darcy: You cannot deny ANY couple the right to get married just because they may not be able to produce kids - gay or straight. And by the same token, the production of offspring is not the only reason for two people to get married. Certainly, it can be a main reason for many to marry. But what makes it unjust is denying those special rights to any citizen as stated in the constitution - regardless if they can have children or not. Those special rights that you refer to should be given to ALL citizens because regardless of their sexual orientation, gay and straight couples have many of the same options to produce children.
I completely agree that promoting healthy families preserves a healthy society. But denying gay couple from getting married does not promote stable families or a healthy society. To say that same sex couples are not healthy is outrageous. Where has it ever been shown that a homosexual marriage is any less healthy than a "traditional" one?
Darcy, if you or societies' objective is to protect healthy families, don't stop gay people from getting married. Stop straight people from getting divorced. Put some time and effort into something that we know infringes on a healthy family, like a divorce, and support the notion that two people who love each other (regardless of their sexual orientation) want to sustain the idea of stable and loving families. Why would anyone want to do otherwise?
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 3:20PM
Excuse me, Jeff, but you seem to be looking at this same-sex marriage issue in a complete vacuum, as if by granting this new "right" there will be no adverse societal consequences. The mere fact that you can ask "Where has it ever been shown that a homosexual marriages is any less healthy than a 'traditional' one?" demonstrates to me that you haven't considered those adverse consequences.
Numero uno is that the state will impose OTHER laws to conform to the new right and in so doing will demand that our religous rights be revoked: a pastor's freedom not to wed same-sex couples; a Christian bookstore's right not to hire openly homosexual staff; a Christian school's right not to hire openly homosexual teachers; a state-imposed diktat to mainstream homosexuality to elementary school children; a photography business's right not to be sued for declining to photograph a homosexual "wedding." And bit by bit Christians and others who find homosexuality immoral will be marginalized, ridiculed -- and sued into silence.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the writings of John Adams who stated: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
I also urge you to wander on over to escapetyranny.com and watch the series of videos produced by Ben Hart on The Christian Roots of Amercan Liberty.
If you cannot make the connection between our freedoms and their religious roots and that to undermine those religious roots through state diktat granting rights inimical to those Christian roots then there is nothing I can do to help you see the light.
darcy| 8.12.10 @ 3:27PM
Let's try that again:
If you cannot make the connection between our freedoms and their religious roots and that to undermine those religious roots -- through state diktat granting rights inimical to those Christian roots -- is unhealthy to our republic, then there is nothing I cand do to help you see the light.
Jeff| 8.13.10 @ 6:01AM
It’s so funny, Darcy, that you and others like you keep referring to those that support this decision as “living in a vacuum.” Do you not realize that it’s you who is living in this bubble of ignorance? Of not recognizing where we are as a society? Haven’t you seen how things have been sheltered and stereotyped for so long because of all these blinded religious opinions that are constantly being bestowed on everyone else? If you could open your eyes and see that the world is not to be run verbatim from the words that YOU read in YOUR bible. This country was founded on the fact that there were many beliefs and allowed for these beliefs to be practiced without prejudice. However, you seem to think that everyone needs to follow your ways in order for rules to be made.
Of course there might be adverse consequences. But guess what? There are many adverse consequences to heterosexual marriages. And you don’t see anyone trying to put an end to that. I didn’t know that homosexuals needed to go through a screening process first in order to determine that their marriages would always turn out perfect. Before heterosexual marriages were put in place, did the creators weigh every option first to make sure it would work? Was there a series of tests to make sure that all conflicts could be resolved before saying straight couples could marry? Adverse consequences are something we all deal with every day. Some are fixed and others aren’t. But don’t use that as an excuse to deny some of the population a right that is granted to others just because YOU don’t want any more problems in the world. Or more importantly, because it goes against YOUR religious beliefs. That’s not the solution. If anything, you might just be creating more problems. And the fact that you can’t answer the question “Where does is say that homosexual marriage is any less healthy than a traditional one” only proves that both marriages will have its adverse consequences as well as healthy results.
Please rest assured that no one is trying to take away your religious rights like you are trying to take away others’ fundamental rights. Those pastors and Christian bookstore owners, and Christian schools, and photographers and especially the elementary children should not be discriminating against gays to begin with. Just like 50 years ago, we asked those same people not discriminate against black people. If I’m against a particular religion, does that give me the right to not hire people of that particular religion? Of course not. Why would it be ok if it was the other way around? You keep referring to your religious rights being taken away. What do you think you’re doing to these gay couples by not only denying them their right to get married but denying them their existence as a person, the way GOD made them? It’s just horrifically disgusting and uncivilized that you could think otherwise. Your religious beliefs are your choice, a choice you made. Being gay is not a choice. It’s who a person is and how they were made. Give them the dignity to live their life with the same options as everyone else. Can’t you see history repeating itself time and again? These were the same arguments made when women fought for the right to vote, when African Americans were denied their freedoms as a human being, when veterans needed to get back on their feet after returning from war, when disabled people tried to survive in a very able society. How many times do minorities have to fight and be heard just to be treated like everyone else? No one is asking you to be “sued into silence”. Rather, they are asking for you to stop treating them like second class citizens and wise up to what this society really is about. The difficult question is what is more important: your religious beliefs or homosexuals’ human rights? It’s not the answer that’s difficult. The answer is obvious. The difficulty is educating people like you one person at a time.
Although I never have heard John Adams quote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” I can only agree as I know many homosexuals who have the highest of morals and have strong religion in their life. It is actually you, who deny the same rights to everyone and exhibit a pompous arrogance towards homosexuals, who I would have to question your morals.
I can respect that you have your own religious beliefs but certainly not everything in this world falls under the affirmation of those beliefs – as no religion would have that. But we’re not talking about someone’s beliefs. We’re talking about someone’s rights. I think you keep confusing the word “rights” with “beliefs.” You have a right to believe in any religion you choose. That doesn’t necessarily give you religious rights that everyone else then needs to legally grant to you. It gives you religious beliefs. Instead of comparing freedoms to religious roots, you should be comparing your opportunity to freedom and other people’s opportunity to freedom. There is a reason why there is a separation between state and church. Nothing about the judge’s decision is unhealthy to our republic. What is unhealthy is bringing in your religious beliefs and using THAT as a factor to make laws that affects that same republic – a republic we share equally. If you can’t make that distinction and keep it separate, than I can only hope for everyone's sake that someday, somehow you will be able to see the light.
andrew| 8.12.10 @ 1:22AM
"Marriage" is a concept created by men (probably males but lets say persons for argument sake). This definition may then be refined, explained etc. by same. If years of tradition have held this to be a union of a heterosexual couple for their own self fulfilment (including but not limited to the raising of children) then so be it. If others want some other form of union for their own self fulfillment, that should be OK, but it should not be allowed to infringe on those who have embraced marriage as it has traditionally been embraced.
There may be some socioligical and psychological analysis of the impact of such same sex unions on children raised in such environments, but that is separate. The right of those desiring such unions must not be infringed, and their right to a union of thier choice must not infringe on those seeking a pure "marriage" and family of traditional sense. The two choices are not mutually exclusive unless one proponent is seeking a dominance of the other.
Vic| 8.12.10 @ 1:47AM
Governments can and do discriminate when issuing a marriage license. You cannot currently marry someone in most states who is under age, too closely related, or otherwise unable to be bound by contract. Many states check both parties for sexually transmitted disease and genetic compatibly for procreation (carriers of the CF gene are warned for instance). These restrictions are perfectly reasonable, for the good of those involved as well as the health of society at large.
In light of the discriminatory nature of the institution, it is not unreasonable or unconstitutional to set limits as to the sexuality of the parties involved.
Marriage is not a right. It is a contract between the state and the parties involved (from the proper perspective of the state). Its purpose is to legally bind the parties involved to any posterity that likely results from the union, which is a self evident mute point with same sex couples.
Jeff| 8.12.10 @ 4:06AM
That's where you're misinformed. Marriage is exactly a right. It's a fundamental right that is protected by the constitution and has been determined a right granted to all people by the US Supreme Court as stated in more than 14 different cases over the past 100 years. Marriage is a right granted by the constitution and has always been upheld by the supreme court that is allowed by two people of their choosing. No where does it ever state that both people have to be of opposite sex. And that is what Judge Walker used in his ruling.
And the idea that same sex couples can't have offspring is ridiculous. There are many options that homosexual couples can use just like straight couples - adoptions, surrogacy, etc.
Vic| 8.12.10 @ 7:20PM
Yes, you are right. That is why my wife(female by the way) and I had to get a federal marriage license.
Jeff| 8.13.10 @ 4:00AM
Getting a state marriage license does not trump the fact that you or I are still protected by the federal constitution which grants marriage as a fundamental right.
My wife (female also by the way) and I were able to marry because it is a right granted to us through the constitution but allows individual states to handle the "paperwork" and they do with other issues. It doesn't, however, allow states to change the rules.
Frank Brunner| 8.12.10 @ 2:34AM
The tendency of liberal judges to over turn the will of the people, by reason of alleged rights or principles that can not be found in the constitution, is a very dangerous threat to our liberty. Frankly, I do not care if two homosexual men choose to marry each other. It is none of my business. But if the People of California choose to ban such marriages, then absent a clear constitutional prohibition, the law must stand. Any other result negates the freedom of the people to govern themselves. It is nothing less than tyranny. Goverance by an elite class of well educated, well meaning individuals, no matter how pure their motives, is nothing less than tyranny, if it is without the consent of the governed.
Jeff| 8.12.10 @ 4:27AM
First of all, Judge Walker is a conservative not liberal. Secondly, his reasons were absolutely found in the constitution. That is what he used to make his decision. The constitution states that marriage is a fundamental right allowed to two people. It doens't say they have to be of opposite sex. And since it is a fundamental right, it is not controlled by the people. It's controlled by the constitution. The judicial system in this case is not making any rules, they are only enforcing them which is their job to do so. Marriage is not a "rule" that the people get to control. It's a right given to ALL of us. There's a checks and balance system that our country is derived upon and it's for this reason that it exists. We are a republic nation, not a demacracy.
The only threat to our liberty would be to allow our neighbors (i.e majority vote) to determine what I can say, who I can worship and in this case, who I can marry.
Derek Leaberry| 8.12.10 @ 1:28PM
Name me one Founding Father who supported homosexual marriage rights. Moreover, my Constitution doesn't mention the word "marriage". No, "Judge" Walker is not only a repellent, dishonorable and immoral creature, he legislates from the bench and is in no way a conservative.
Jeff| 8.13.10 @ 4:06AM
Name me one Founding Father who DIDN'T support homosexual marriage rights.
andrew| 8.12.10 @ 3:35AM
Vic. "Marriage is not a right. It is a contract between the state and the parties involved..." Whoah!! I didn't know I was marrying the state. Ewwww. Fact is, it is a 'vow' by two people to stand by each other, through 'sickness and in health, in richer and in poorer, until death do us part". I may not have gotten that quote exactly right, but you get my gist. If two persons of the same sex make this committment, why is it less valid that that committment of two heterosexual persons?
Oh! Wait! The children!! OK, Wait a minute. How many children do same sex couples have?
Vic| 8.12.10 @ 7:29PM
Show me where I said the couple involved were marrying the state. What I was referring to is why the state got involved in the institution to start with.
The states involvement has nothing to do with feelings. That's where you liberals tend to leave the reservation. The states interest is in holding accountable those who give birth to helpless human beings, and seeing to it someone is held legally responsible for them.
Otherwise, the state has no interest.
Jake| 8.12.10 @ 3:45AM
What's important to realize here is that it doesn't matter if 7 million of 70 million people voted a certain way. Fundamental rights are not determined by popular vote. If they were, then freedom of speech, civil liberties and a whole lot of other freedoms would never exist. Would you like the majority of the population to determine what you can say, where you can worship, who you can marry or even determine what you're allowed to believe?
The US Supreme Court has said several times over the past 100 years that marriage is a fundamental right and is protected for each individual under the constitution. The person each of us marries is NOT determined by our neighbors. Therefore, this is a case where is doesn't matter what the majority vote says. It matters what we are all entitled to under the bill of rights (which is there to protect all of us). THAT is what the judge based his decision on - regardless of his sexual orientation.
If the judge was truly thinking of his own best interest, don't you think he would be smart enough to recognize that his sexual orientation could cause his ruling to be scrutinized by not only his opponents, but more importantly the higher courts? If he felt his sexual orientation would cause a higher court to find bias in his decision, wouldn’t he have excused himself from this case with the sole intention of not having it overturned because an appellate judge would think he made this decision for his own personal gain?
Vic| 8.12.10 @ 7:33PM
Please explain why my wife and I had to show proof of age in order to get our license. Is that not a case of our neighbors deciding if we qualify?
Jeff| 8.13.10 @ 4:17AM
Actually, no, your neighbors are not the ones who made the decision to determine if you qualified. That, too, was defined federally - just like the right to marry. So to answer your question, you and your wife had to show proof of age because federal law says so.
ROBERT | 8.12.10 @ 8:12AM
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. AND ALL THE SHOUTING THAT IT IS WILL NOT MAKE IT SO.
John II| 8.12.10 @ 10:07AM
Looks as if we're cutting to the chase near the end of this thread. Actually, marriage itself is not a fundamental right, never mind homosexual "marriage."
There aren't very many fundamental rights. One of them is the right to life--and it's instructive that a culture which denies that right is also a culture that cooks up faux-rights, such as the "right" to marriage extended to all indiscriminately.
Apparently, a moral vacuum is left by the denial of a true right, so that faux-rights need to be stuffed into the consequent emptiness, with attendant sound and fury.
RCV| 8.12.10 @ 4:25PM
And writing something in all caps does not make it any more persuasive.
Tom Rowan| 8.12.10 @ 10:16AM
The outrage is that the Ruling Class's wishes have thrawted the rule of the people. Courts have been targeted by left wing activists for years. This is known as Judge Shopping. After years of seeing this practice before our own eyes, why should we be assumed that this liberal judge in particular was carefully shopped for?
Just as critics of Obama's policies are said to be racists because Obama is black, is where this judge puts his genitals supposed to sheild him from rightous outrage and justitfiable criticism of his opinion?
I think not.
Frankly, I do not car if this judge sleeps with goats. So long as he recuses himself from goat molestation cases.
Harummmmph!
GMan| 8.12.10 @ 8:41PM
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
Quite a transformation over the years. Thanks George H.W. It seems pretty clear gays cannot be satisfied with all the rights/privileges a same-sex union provides them. It's all about the damage they MUST do to the sacrement of marriage to justify what they must know deep in their confused hearts, is morally backwards. All God-Fearing folks please pray this gets to the Supreme Court and is struck down.
RCV| 8.13.10 @ 12:48AM
The religious sacrament of marriage will remain however any church chooses to define and restrict it; the First amendment guarantees that. What is at issue is only state- granted rights and privileges.
Gerald Stephens| 8.13.10 @ 6:19AM
Mr. Goldstein proclaims a conservative identity it appears incorrectly when selectively citing the chosen language from West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. The verbiage does indeed support rights of the people not enumerated in the Constitution.
The right of a state, i.e. the people, to statutorily provide for referendum with the outcome being binding is settled law. To suggest otherwise is note quite in keeping with the concept of and mechanism for altering, for example, Amendments to the Federal Constitution. To do so by judicial fiat is neither constitutional nor conservative, unless the Supreme Court has a go at it and even that is questionable given the history of reversals.
It can be correctly argued that there exists two historically accepted means of creating a union between persons who wish to be bound to each other, be they heterosexual or homosexual. They are marriage, historically determined to be between a man and a woman conducted through a prescribed religious rite, and equally historically accepted civil unions in secular law. To blur the distinction by judicial fiat actually rises to the level of violating the federal constitutional prohibition against the government establishment of and or interfering with freedom of religion. And any argument that certain religious groupings now allow and perform 'marriage' acts is specious in that I am comfortable in assuming there are multiple groups claiming to have 'religious' authority to do things quite inconsistent with many historically defined acts, the latter I believe held as precedent.
There mere fact the one has an active imagination and capable of creating 80 or more talking points in support of something, as seems to be the situation with Judge Walker, does not support anything more than a good imagination and writing abilities.
Since there currently exists a perfectly legal means of joining homosexuals through civil union, a condition that does not interfere with any civil right of either person, and constitutionally so, there then exists no circumstance wherein a civil government official has the constitutional authority to alter the
precedent definition of the word marriage.
mike ames| 8.13.10 @ 9:57AM
His argument is not in the final analysis a legal one; it is a socialolgical one and therefore pseudo.
Randy King| 8.16.10 @ 12:06PM
In the 2006 Nebraska ruling the 8th circuit court of appeals acknowledged that there was no constitutional right to same sex marriage; that procreation was a rationale excuse for supporting a ban on same sex marriage.
Walker's attempted to explain this fact away by pointing out that turkey-bastors have leveled the playing field and positioned same sex enthusiasts on an equal, if not, more favorable footing.
This judges opinion has absolutely no basis in law; it arbitrarily ends the 1st Amendments protection of the immutability of religion and replaces it with a brand new immutable classification for those that partake in sexual perversion.
Jeff| 8.16.10 @ 6:04PM
The idea that you refer to homosexuality as "sexual perversion" only shows how ignorant you really are. Same sex marriages will in no way affect your religious beliefs (even though your religious beliefs need to affect someone else's fundamental rights.)
It's pretty sad that in today's society you aren't able to see there are more ways to procreate than just one.
Joanna | 6.6.11 @ 4:26AM
What an interesting article- I hope to read more like this, thanks!UTI Treatment
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 3:36AM
l like the space.support.
thank you.