-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker has struck down Proposition 8, the popularly approved ballot measure in California that banned same sex marriage, ruling that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. 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.
Read the full decision here.
View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/08/04/ca-judge-overturns-prop-8
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Pete| 8.4.10 @ 5:24PM
Wow. The will of the people means nothing to a progressive activist.
Will| 10.20.10 @ 3:07PM
Nor should it mean anything.
The will of the majority is irrelevant if it does harm to another. See Alabama, Mississippi, etc in the 1950s and 1960s.
You have a right to your personal bigotry, but you do not have a right to enact that bigotry as law, regardless of the number of individuals who share in the bigotry.
Thus, the series of defeats that social conservatives will endure on this issue, both in 2010 and for years to come.
History truly repeats itself as Social Cons find themselves on the same side of civil rights that they did fifty years ago.
Sorry to burst your bubble, old man. We've progressed beyond your primitive bigotry.
The Empiricist| 8.4.10 @ 5:40PM
Walker was first nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987.
Pete| 8.4.10 @ 5:57PM
Are you trying to make a point with that factoid? The man is gay and in ruling to overturn the will of the people is acting like a progressive activist.
Ralph| 8.4.10 @ 5:55PM
Opposite sex couples are superior to same sex ones. They can reproduce more efficiently, requiring only 2 people, not 3. (which is technically not true, homosexuals really only need two, they bring in the nonbiological parent as a substitute). It's all make believe that there isn't any difference.
2qt2bstr8| 8.5.10 @ 2:26PM
OH, Ralph .... you have it so Wrong! I am a lesbian, I have 3 beautiful boys... and its not make believe... The life I have is very real, and we don't need straight men telling us that straight people can reproduce more efficiently... having my children required 2 people.. not 3.... Get your facts straight before opening your mouth!
MX1336| 8.4.10 @ 6:00PM
California is unconstitutional.
maureen| 8.5.10 @ 5:42PM
California is unconstitutional because 7,000,000
people voted against prop.8 in 2008 or because
this judge ignored the will of the people and the ballet vote?
Jonathan M.| 8.4.10 @ 6:34PM
Once again, faggots win a victory over the Constitution. Thanks, California!
Peter| 8.5.10 @ 12:40PM
Rolling out the slurs within the first few comments. You must be happy you were the first bigot to show your hand.
Zombyboy | 8.5.10 @ 2:17PM
Tremendously offensive, Jonathan. Arguing your point without resorting to name-calling would be more impressive (and likely more effective).
2qt2bstr8| 8.5.10 @ 2:28PM
Jonathan : Faggots huh! Get hit by a car you idiot, perhaps fall down a flight of stairs while your at it. JERK!
maureen| 8.5.10 @ 5:43PM
Hey we can debate without the name calling.
C Bowen| 8.4.10 @ 6:51PM
Two men or two women, cannot be married, but the state can sanction anything it wants to, and it does.
It's clear serious conservatives need to stop getting state sanctioned marriages (why pay the marriage penalty anyway) and get a private Church marriage.
Pick a Church that takes marriage seriously--i.e. not one that would sanction, say, Newt, or Rudy.
Nick Jihad| 8.4.10 @ 6:58PM
Equal protection is in the eye of the beholder: since prop 8 forbids gays and straights equally from marrying a person of the same sex, there is arguably no violation of equal protection.
Sounds kind of silly, i know, but it seems like arguments very similar to that are acceptable, when one wishes some law _not_ to constitute a violation of equal protection. After all, do laws against burglary apply to everyone, or only to thieves?
Richard| 8.4.10 @ 7:02PM
Hey Pete? "Will of the people"?? The "will of the people" would certainly not have allowed desegregation in Alabama in the 1960s. Had the "will of the people" been upheld blacks would still be using separate drinking fountains. Issues of human rights are never Constitutionally put up to popular vote. Hone up on your U.S. Constitution there fella.
Pete| 8.4.10 @ 7:26PM
You are one enlightened Dick. I thank my lucky stars that people like you, superior people with big brains, can decide what is best for us all. Bless you, Dick.
Richard| 8.4.10 @ 9:19PM
I'm happy you concede to your betters .. and isn't "Peter" another name for penis? Yup. I think it is. I'm not deciding what's "best for us all" but you're sure as shit not deciding what's best for ME dude. The Constituion represents me as much as it does you so you can take your flimsy self-involved attitude and warped view of fairness and place is squarely where he sun don't shine.
dongle| 8.5.10 @ 7:21AM
Oooh, oooh, ooooh -- Mr Richard Cranium got his panties in a twist.... ooooh, ooooh
Will| 10.20.10 @ 3:12PM
As am I, minus the sarcasm.
I am thankful every day that the intelligent, enlightened, educated minority in this country wrestle power from the ignorant, superstitious bigots that represent the majority and attempt to stand in the way of progress.
There's a reason for the elitist attitude, sir, because when compared to the mindset of a social conservative, even a person of average native intelligence is elite.
The fact that there are so few "elites" and so many of your kind, and yet progress continues to occur despite your whining and obstruction should be all the evidence you need that the progressives aren't "elitists", but truly are elite in comparison to the likes of you and your ilk.
Tom S.| 8.4.10 @ 7:28PM
And we'd be a hell of a lot better off for it.
This is the fundamental problem liberals have - not understand that the PEOPLE - not the GOVERNMENT - make the best decisions for themselves
Tom in Oregon City| 8.5.10 @ 1:37PM
Richard: The Civil Rights Act _was_ the will of the people. California's Prop 8 was the will of the people. This action was the will of a judge, in defiance of the people's will.
maureen| 8.5.10 @ 5:45PM
The will of the people back then was called the
democratic party.
Richard| 8.4.10 @ 7:03PM
Bottom line? IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DON"T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. See? Simple.
Tim*| 8.4.10 @ 11:30PM
Get Back to us when you can marry your sister or your dog .
Will| 10.20.10 @ 3:15PM
...or we could exercise some common sense and define marriage the same way that we define legal sex in this country - an agreement between consenting adults.
Aren't you small minded, small government conservatives all about the government butting out of the lives and liberties of individuals? Why the hypocrisy? If the individual wishes to be married, who are the masses to deny them of their personal liberty?
Richard| 8.4.10 @ 7:05PM
Hey Jonathan? Keep your myopic hate-mongering words to yourself. You simply illustrate the point of the intelligent people in this country with your short-sightedness. "faggot" eh? You must be joking! Learn to think with INDEPENDENCE of thought.
Jonathan M.| 8.4.10 @ 7:17PM
Go back to the New York Times, troll. Your deviant lifestyle does not have a place in this country.
Don H| 8.4.10 @ 8:45PM
I knew I'd find Jonathan M commenting on a gay article, calling people names and telling them where to go back to if they don't agree with his narrow, bigotted view of the world.
Perhaps we've got a closeted and self-hating homosexual here. Hmmmm!
maureen| 8.5.10 @ 5:36PM
You mean the New York slim?
John DuBose| 8.4.10 @ 7:09PM
Speaking as someone who belives in Biblical principles: There aint no such thing as "gay"
marriage.
Speaking as a citizen of our great secular republic:
Gay people deserve equal protection of the laws.
That means they should be able to form contracts that are all but eqivalent to standard marriage contracts.
There is no real conflict if you can get clear of the idea that you have the right to tell someone who to marry through the government.
Tom S.| 8.4.10 @ 7:35PM
One nation UNDER GOD, John.
If the problem with liberals is that they think the government knows better than the people, the problem with some "libertarian" conservatives is that they don't understand that this is a Christian nation. We are not a "secular republic," and if we ever forget that, we're done for.
Will| 10.20.10 @ 3:18PM
One nation under WHOSE god, Tom? Yours? Mine? There are many different gods, including many varied interpretations of the christian god (thus all of the denominations that can't seem to agree on enough to be called a single religion).
Social conservatives believe that if they repeat the mantra that "this is a christian nation" that somehow it will come true. Keep wishing there, bud. It is not, was not and will never be a christian nation, and anyone who says otherwise is either an ignorant fool or a liar who is aware of the history of this nation but refuses to acknowledge the bits that they personally find distasteful.
CalMark| 8.4.10 @ 7:35PM
The majority of the American people favor real marriage, as opposed to "gay" marriage.
Gay activists and counterculture types can't keep stomping the will of the people and winning.
Sometimes, the burden of awful stuff has to become so heavy that the body politic just shrugs off the whole mess in one piece.
Something has to give here, and the gay activists--including this judge, an unethical agenda dictator in a black robe if ever there was one--aren't likely to enjoy watching it.
Andrew Keirns| 8.4.10 @ 7:59PM
... pretty sure it was ted Olson who argued for overturning the ban. The same ted Olson arguing Bush/Gore before the SCOTUS to get Bush elected.
He's two for two. Has he lost? Wish he'd lost his most recent in CA today.
Andrew Keirns| 8.4.10 @ 8:12PM
Here's Leadership: "With the exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional ... the government defendants ... declined to defend Proposition 8"
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER in his capacity as Governor declined to defend the will of the people of California.
Richard| 8.4.10 @ 9:23PM
the "Will of the People" if upheld in Selma in the 1960s would have black people still sitting at the back of the bus and drinking from separate water fountains. The people (since you obviously don't know your Constitutional law) never put human rights up for popular vote. The majority of Americans are too subliminally influenced by selectively chosen passages from Leviticus to think properly. Doesn't any know that right after that "man shall not lie with man" abomination thingy is a passage saying "to eat shellfish is an abomination to God"? That takes care of the Red Lobster folks. Get a freaking grip already.
Tim*| 8.4.10 @ 11:45PM
Aaaand , your attempts at anti-religious slur argument show , you also know crap about Constitutional Law .
John DuBose| 8.4.10 @ 8:26PM
The good old USA is both a secular republic and a Christian Nation. We need both parts of our idenity to remain free.
Will| 10.20.10 @ 3:19PM
If we woke up tomorrow and Christianity (and all religion) magically disappeared from our collective memory, the good old USA wouldn't change a bit...
...except that it might be a bit more of a peaceful and reasonable place to live.
Derek Leaberry| 8.5.10 @ 10:58AM
Notice that Mr. Klein does not comment on the ruling. That is because he is almost certainly in agreement with it.
Inevitably, homosexual marriage will be the law of the land. Why? The Left fully supports degeneration. The Right does not know how, or couldn't care less, about conserving civilization. The modern conservative movement is the movement that conserves nothing.
owyheewine| 8.5.10 @ 11:09AM
I'm curious how one of the few fairy dust sprinkled judges just happened to be assigned to this case. The 9th circus is appallingly statist, but this assignment of a case really stinks.
BlueGuy | 8.5.10 @ 12:58PM
The law defines marriage as a civil contract between one adult and one member of the opposite sex. The judge claims this violates the equal protection clause. It seems to me like that law applies pretty equally to everybody.
Defining marriage is a State issue. Invoking the "equal protection" clause is just a weak attempt to give the Federal government jurisdiction somewhere else it doesn't belong.
Alex Knisely| 8.5.10 @ 1:16PM
What harm is it going to do? Two people who pool their resources and take care of each other -- less burden for the State to carry, seems to me. Leave them alone, wish them joy, and count on God to judge and to condemn them, if He sees fit: That's in His job description, not in ours. (His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are higher than ours - for context, Isaiah 55:7-11.)
John II| 8.5.10 @ 1:55PM
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
Love that smug Ruling Class language! The relatively short history of homosexual activism in America has been the story of a prolonged tantrum, beginning with the strong-arming of a feckless American Psychiatric Association into defining a particular form of emotional disorder out of existence.
And continuing with an avalanche of verbal and physical assaults on supporters of Proposition 8 in California.
In Canada, it's already a hate crime for an orthodox Christian pastor to preach against sexual inversion. Forget about anticipating a slippery slope. We're already on it.
DRed| 8.5.10 @ 4:07PM
So John2, what was the rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry a person of their choosing that the proponents of proposition 8 advanced at trial?
The defenders of proposition 8 had their day to defend the constitutionality of their it in court, and they did a spectacularly poor job of it. But dont' worry-by the time this gets to the Supreme Court they'll probably find someone more competent to argue their case.
And if the APA was feckless, one would hardly have to strongarm them to get them to change their mind. Perhaps you've been watching too much tv today.
John II| 8.5.10 @ 6:09PM
Well--not too much, considering it's summertime; but surely the kind you'd disapprove of, DReddie, e.g., "Father Knows Best" episodes from the dark and sinister fifties, plus old Hopalong Cassidy flicks.
The principal argument for California's Prop 8 that I found most sensible is of the basic sort that argumentation itself relies on: the considered judgment of the species after many thousands of years of trial and error--what Chesterton called the "democracy of the dead."
For example, the smugness with which you are delivering your response to my comment rests on the assumption that rational bases are good--an assumption which I believe to be true but which cannot itself be defended rationally--it can only be taken as axiomatic. Not that he assumption is irrational; rather, it's PRE-rational.
The recognition of homosexuality as a personal disorder and the attendant rejection of homosexual "marriage" as preposterous are issues of the type that touch directly on first principles, which in turn depend for THEIR recognition on a healthy culture and, for their defense, on cultivated intellects steeped in literature and history and philosophy and not just trained in sophomore logic and legal parlor tricks.
Our culture is in a tailspin, DReddie, and insouciance over sexual inversion is only one mark of the decline--but a fairly consequential mark, I believe. The next step after reducing marriage to nothing more than a social contract will be to legislate against regarding marriage otherwise. The next target will be churches that refuse to "marry" same-sex couples.
I must confess that the slopes have turned out to be much more slippery than I would have thought possible a generation ago. For example, I was theoretically unhappy with the Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973, but never imagined that, twenty years later, the argument would be over whether children should be killed as they're emerging from the womb--and that, 37 years later, the Senate would confirm a Supreme Court nominee who passionately (coldly?) supports partial-birth abortion, even to the point of preparing deceptive bureaucratic statements about the practice in order to promote it among fools.
Anyhow, arguments directly on behalf of first principles require a finesse and a subtlety and an eloquence beyond the powers of most contemporary legal-eagles to make, certainly, but also even to follow. So I'm not surprised that the performance of the defenders was "spectacularly poor." Christ's performance before Pilate wasn't so hot either.
Troy| 8.5.10 @ 3:02PM
Outrageous court decisions like this one, made by none other than a judge WHO IS HIMSELF FAGGOT!, are what make a mockery of our judicial system, our voting system and our society. I would have this clown out on his ass in the gutter in a heartbeat if there were an impeachment process for Federal judges. It's simply unconscionable for this type of pigheaded arrogance on the part of special interest groups to be allowed to corrupt our way of life any further. We will see what happens after this reaches the Suprreme Court and this type of mayhem is tolerated any further. We'll let it burn!
DRed| 8.5.10 @ 4:52PM
There is an impeachment process for Federal judges. One of our fine Democratic congressman was impeached for taking bribes back when he was a federal judge.
I have to say, it doesn't surprise me at all that you didn't have the mental energy to type 'federal judge impeachment process' into google. Intellectually lazy idiots like yourself are much more of a threat to our society than a bunch of married homosexuals are.
Troy| 8.6.10 @ 12:19AM
It's precisely degenerates like you who unwisely think that you will be able to run our country down to its lowest moral and social point, but it's never going to happen. Lay rest assured that we simply will never you allow you and all like-minded faggots just like you to do that, ever. And it's that simple. You will see.
maureen| 8.5.10 @ 5:50PM
This should be a state issue and not the Federal
government. Each state should be voting on this issue.This judge from San Francisco wants to make this issue about same sex marriage a national law and he used the 14 amendment which
has nothing to do with sex of any kind.
John II| 8.5.10 @ 7:14PM
On the other hand, the relative weakness of the defense of Prop. 8 suggests the possibility of its proponents' trying to force the issue nationally.
If I were a legal-eagle skilled in the peculiar tactics of that profession, and cognizant of the apparently degenerate condition of California's leadership, I'd be keeping my powder dry and my arguments perfunctory in the expectation that Prop. 8 would be overturned anyhow. I'd be saving my bigger guns for the appeals process and gathering my best talents for a colossal showdown at the level of the Supreme Court.
Can't be sure that's the plan, but I guess we're going to find out.
Richard| 8.6.10 @ 6:09PM
@CalMark who wrote "Gay activists and counterculture types can't keep stomping the will of the people and winning." Oh yeah we can and we will until you hate-mongering pea brains been taught once and for all that excluding some of the people from the rights Constituionally guaranteed the rest of your are ours in perpetuity.
"counterculture types"? LMAO! How's life in that single wide?
Richard| 8.6.10 @ 6:14PM
@ John II who wrote "The relatively short history of homosexual activism in America has been the story of a prolonged tantrum, beginning with the strong-arming of a feckless American Psychiatric Association into defining a particular form of emotional disorder out of existence.
Why you arrogant pup! "Feckless American Psychiatric Assoicaition"? YEAH! Reinstitute the snake pit I say! Chop off their coglioni AS LONG AS THEY ARE MALE HOMOSEXUALS (no girls please cuz us straight dudes get wood watching them).
Are you bloody serious?
You're nothing but a bourgeois bigot hiding by average prose to appear as though he knows of that which he speaks.
@ Peter who wrote "Rolling out the slurs within the first few comments. You must be happy you were the first bigot to show your hand"
No. I left that dubious distinction to you. PLZBLEVIT.
Carol J. Oyler| 8.12.10 @ 7:43PM
I am completely appalled That U. S. District Judge
Vaughn R. Walker overturned the will of the people
of California! We are a government of the people
that is what the Constitution says, and we said we
DID NOT WANT THEIR SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS TO BE CALLED A MARRIAGE!
Marriage was designed by GOD Himself and he
chose man and women for marriage and for the
creation of a family. These people are not being
discriminated against, they themselves chose this
lifestyle, we must all pay for our choices! If
they even believed in God they would know from
the word of God what He feels about this sort of
lifestyle. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, what
happened there? The Lord says in His word
Romans 1:24-32 about people that practice this
lifestyle. What is happening to the United States
of America that was founded on religious freedom
when we have Judges that do not respect the
people's rights or the founding Fathers of this
great Country. We need to get these people off
the bench, if this man comes for a new term or a
new court, lets do all in the people's power to
see he no longer has the right to make these
kind of decision, especially going against the
people in an election! What has happened to
a moral and decent Country?
Will| 10.20.10 @ 3:22PM
Dear religious bigot,
We don't care what you want.
We don't care about your opinion of what god wants.
We don't care about your mythology of Sodom and Gomorrah.
We don't care about your grossly misinformed view of the founding fathers.
We don't care about your personal morals.
You speak for yourself, and no one else.
The ability you had to enforce your bigotry on others has been stripped from you.
Sorry about your luck. We've progressed beyond your brand of bigotry in the past, and we will continue to do so in the present and future.
love,
America