Gay Judge Overrrules Prop 8, Voter Definition of Marriage

Wednesday, August 4, 2010


Who gets to decide if the traditional definition of marriage, in place since the dawn of humanity, will now be changed to accommodate the feelings of a troubled minority who don't fit the description. The government? The people? Judges and lawyers? We live in what kind of republic again? What's the purpose of marriage again?

No one who knew anything about this case didn't see this coming. The openly gay judge Vaughn Walker ruling on Prop 8 harassed lawyers defending the voters of California during the whole trial, and at one point tried to force them to release the names of the citizens who donated to the National Organization for Marriage so that they could be harassed and intimidated as we saw around the time Prop 8 passed in California, by about the same margin as Obama was elected president. He only backed down when the liberal ACLU (who is helping fund the fight for gay marriage) no less said he was violating the rights of traditional marriage activists and the U.S. Supreme Court censured his illegal actions!

Judge Vaughn Walker's court has been a sham from the beginning. Now, on to the Supreme Court!

A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.[...]

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.

Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."

In an unusual move, the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.

That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

[Fox News]

11 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Who gets to decide if the traditional definition of marriage, in place since the dawn of humanity, will now be changed to accommodate the feelings of a troubled minority who don't fit the description. The government?

I would suggest that individually or in your church or temple or house, you can define marriage how you want. But because marriage is also a civil arrangement, yes, in our nation, the state HAS defined it.

In the past, it was defined as marriage between folk of the opposite gender and same race. That definition was changed for reasons of justice. Now, that definition is going to change again, sooner or later. And that's okay.

That's how our system works. We vote for our representatives. They enact laws. If we don't like it, we can try to vote them out or change laws.

And, if those laws are contrary to the US Constitution, the Court has an obligation to overturn it. It's how our system works, right?

The LAW, in fact the CONSTITUTIONAL definition in California was that marriage was to remain defined as between a man and a woman. ONE obviously biased and agenda-driven judge changed the democratically formed definition with a stroke of his pen. How does that follow democracy, republicanism, or the rule of law?

How is keeping the definition of marriage what it has always been unconstitutional?

How is recognizing gay couples as married good for our society?

How is it unjust not to allow gay couples to force their sexual morality on everyone else?

How can you dare to tell me that this is how our system is supposed to work? Out system does not allow things to happen just because some people feel strongly enough about it. That is tyranny.

Dan Trabue said...

The LAW, in fact the CONSTITUTIONAL definition in California was that marriage was to remain defined as between a man and a woman. ONE obviously biased and agenda-driven judge changed the democratically formed definition with a stroke of his pen. How does that follow democracy, republicanism, or the rule of law?

The local court decides if it's constitutional, which is what happened. If they find it unconstitutional, they have an obligation to overturn it.

IF some suspect bias or some foul play on the part of the lower court, they appeal to a higher court.

That's America in action, right?

Not tyranny at all. You are familiar with both the definition of tyranny (this does not meet that) and the definition of judicial review (this does meet that).

Yes, this is how America is supposed to work. If there is legal grounds for overturning this judge's decision, then make them in court and let the higher court make that call. I'm okay with listening for the court's ruling on this point and abiding by that. Are you?

If not, what would you have people do instead?

If it turns out that the court process ends up with a decision that I don't think is just and right, I'll work for change within the system as it is. If it upholds the lower court's decision, then all is good and right.

Dan Trabue said...

How is keeping the definition of marriage what it has always been unconstitutional?

You'll have to take that up with the Court, I'm no legal expert. It sounds like to me, though, that they're penalizing one group of people (homosexual) for wanting to do a good and wholesome thing while granting privileges to another group (straight folk). That seems like an injustice to me, but I'm no legal scholar.

How is recognizing gay couples as married good for our society?

I believe in marriage. I just celebrated my 25th anniversary of committed love to my spouse. Marriage is a good thing. Fidelity is a good thing. Commitment is a good thing.

Do you disagree?

How is it unjust not to allow gay couples to force their sexual morality on everyone else?

I would be wholly and strenuously opposed to ANYONE forcing their sexual morality upon anyone else. But who is doing that?

Someone forcing you to be gay? To be straight? I'll stand with you in opposing such horrible behavior.

I rather doubt that anyone is actually forcing their "sexual morality" upon you.

Ok, I see that you are not aware of the further ramifications of this decision. If it stopped simply at giving homosexual couples a piece of paper that said they are married, that would be one thing. However, sadly that is not the case.

This is not about equal rights. This is about enacting radical, unpopular social change. The government officially recognizing gay marriages means that the public schools must now teach our children that there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple, no matter if their religious convictions support or oppose the idea. We see it in Massachusetts and even some in California, despite the fact that gay marriage was not legally recognized. Parental/religious rights to hold a different moral view on homosexuality are trampled by this decision. That was the intent of its supporters all along.

Do you find it "American" that one biased judge holds more power than the entire electorate of California? Yes, he can be appealed but the process will take years and millions of dollars more, all because he didn't like what the people decided. Meanwhile, his tyrannical decision holds and gay marriages will continue. Don't you find it odd that he ran his courtroom in such a way that even the ACLU and the 9th Circuit Court stepped in to curtail his punitive actions against one side? You are okay with this? This is normal and how the system should work in America?

I think what bothers marriage supporters the most about this outcome is that they played by the rules this whole time: they put in their time and energy to legally pass a ballot initiative appealing to the better nature of California's electorate, while the supporters of neutered marriage have been trying to cheat all along with intimidation, violence, slander and now this. If a SOCIETY is going to choose to change their definition of something, then the SOCIETY should decide, not one obviously biased man. Whatever side you are on, you must see that that is not decision that can settle this once and for all. That is an invitation for more controversy. If gay marriage is so important and fundamentally American, why has it NEVER been enacted by a vote to the people anywhere is America. Why does it always have to be forced on them by liberal politicians?

So I am sure you will now oppose any instance of homosexuality and gay marriage being forced on children in public schools. You said that you would stand with us "in opposing such horrible behavior." I will hold you to that.

Dan Trabue said...

Do you find it "American" that one biased judge holds more power than the entire electorate of California? Yes, he can be appealed but the process will take years and millions of dollars more, all because he didn't like what the people decided.

Yes. That IS exactly American.

That is how our system works. You understand that, right? You're not wanting to rewrite the way the US works, are you? If you are, what are you proposing instead - just a simple democracy where the law is whatever 51% of the people want?

You do understand, don't you, that the greatness of this Great nation comes largely from the way it was specifically designed, protecting individual rights from the "tyranny of the 50% + 1?" It's what allowed the Civil Rights movement to change our laws, when the majority would still have preferred to "keep the blacks in their place." It's part of what makes our nation great, don't you agree?

Dan Trabue said...

So I am sure you will now oppose any instance of homosexuality and gay marriage being forced on children in public schools. You said that you would stand with us "in opposing such horrible behavior." I will hold you to that.

Yes, I will stand opposed to "forcing homosexuality" upon anyone. No one will ever MAKE you be gay or even make you hang out with gay people.

On the other hand, I will also defend gay folk who merely want to be accepted for who they are and I will not stand by and let anyone else tell them they can't be the person they were born to be, created in God's holy image to be.

So, the gay folk won't "make you" be gay or enjoy gay stuff. And you won't make gay people hide or get beaten or otherwise abused. Is that a fair deal?

As far as religious folk and schools, I am a Christian, a parent of two public school children. I regularly hear that they are being taught things contrary to my belief system. For instance, I am an anabaptist (mennonites, amish) and we don't believe in saying a pledge of allegiance to anything but God, but every day, my children had the pledge "forced" upon them.

But not really. I told them they could say the pledge or not, whichever they felt most comfortable with, and we taught them at home and at church why we don't do that. Being in a situation where not everyone agrees with their belief system has only made them stronger in their faith, I believe.

It will be like that with parents who oppose gay marriage. Nothing will be forced upon them. They may find themselves in situations where others disagree with them, but that's okay. It happens every day in the real world.

Dan Trabue said...

This is not about equal rights. This is about enacting radical, unpopular social change.

Says who? My gay friends only want the "special rights" that straight folk have in regards to marriage. They want to not have to hide who they are. They want not to be abused, beaten and killed. It's a justice issue for us.

And one day, probably within my lifetime, the "popular" position will be in favor of gay folk being able to marry if they want. Will you cite popular opinion, then?

Dr B said...

DOMA was overthrown by a liberal judge who said the federal can't define marriage as excluding gays because it is up to the states. Well, now a radical gay judge says it is up to the federal to overthrow a state constitution that defines the word marriage while affording equal rights to gays. So the message here is that ANYTHING, not just marriage, is up to the states.... unless the judge doesn't like how the states handle it.

The federal judge hearing the double-jeopardy case against Proposition 8 U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is gay and close friend to San Francisco gay politicians. Judge Walker ruled in favor of "gay rights" in previous cases.

In 2005, gay judge Walker ruled against Oakland city employees who posted fliers promoting "natural family, marriage and family values." Walker wrote in his decision that the government should push "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals. . . . a duty under state law to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

In 1999, he threw out a case against a boy whose teacher made "pro-gay comments" in the classroom (I can't find anywhere exactly what those comments were.)

But this isn't really about gay rights when it comes down to it. This whole thing was about a word- marriage. Civil unions were equal, but the gays (not really the gays, more like the liberals who instigated them) wanted the word marriage, which has previously been religious and sacred. Now it is secular. It is the courts, and now the federal government overthrowing our constitution and the vote of the people. This is what it is about. Naturally the first target is the family and religious freedoms. With the stroke of his pen, this gay tyrant overthrew the vote of 7 million people, and it will soon spread to all 320 million people in this country.

Dan Trabue said...

Civil unions were equal, but the gays (not really the gays, more like the liberals who instigated them) wanted the word marriage, which has previously been religious and sacred.

"Marriage" is a word, always has been. Nothing more. A word meaning a union.

There have been variations on what that union looks like that have changed somewhat from culture to culture and age to age. Sometimes it involved polygamy, sometimes it involves arranged marriages, sometimes monogamy, sometimes a religious rite, sometimes not.

In our society, I think it is fair to say, that there are sort of two notions that go along with marriage: A civil union, sanctioned by the state and a religious rite.

What this judge has done has overruled a law that he believes to be unconstitutional in regards to that first meaning of the word, "marriage." From all that I see, I believe he is right (of course, I'm no legal scholar, but based on the laws as I understand them, you can't just willy nilly say THIS group CAN marry, but THAT group can't.

This has already been decided in anti-miscegenation cases where the Courts have ruled that a state or local gov't can't say THOSE PEOPLE who are black and white can't marry, but only those of the same race. It's a legal and justice issue.

This is not to say that religious folk who swing that way can't have their own religious meaning of the word if they want. It's just saying that in this free US of A, we can't discriminate against a group like this.

I think he's right. We'll see how it sorts out in appeals, but eventually, I'm confident that all folk will have this very basic right and the injustice of creating a "separate but equal" condition will fall, just like it did with schools and discrimination.

Dan Trabue said...

Naturally the first target is the family and religious freedoms.

No target, no loss of religious freedoms whatsoever, except insofar as if some religious folk wish to discriminate at the civic level.

Churches can still marry who they wish and turn away those they don't wish to marry, just as they always have been able to do. There is simply NOT A SINGLE loss of religious liberty here.

That would be a false assessment of the situation. I would be interested in knowing what religious liberty IS lost here? Can you provide any suggestion as to what was lost, or is that suggestion based wholly upon nothing whatsoever?

With the stroke of his pen, this gay tyrant overthrew the vote of 7 million people, and it will soon spread to all 320 million people in this country.

1. He's not a tyrant. That would be a slanderous and incorrect charge. The word "Tyrant" has a meaning. He is a judge, just doing his job.

2. He IS doing his job. If a state passes a law that is in conflict with the Constitution, any judge has a responsibility to overturn it. That's how our gov't works. You understand this, don't you?

Post a Comment

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).