What a shock! An openly gay judge overturned California's Prop 8, thereby dismissing the wishes of seven million Californians. Was this case not a conflict of interest? How objective could a homosexual judge be in such a case? Are we expected to believe that his personal sexual orientation did not sway his opinion? This is a disgrace! U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from this case.
I received the following email from Dr. Robert George of the American Principles Project:
"'Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of "raw judicial power" threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,' said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. 'In striking down California's conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance-the definition and meaning of marriage itself-that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.'
'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.'
Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
'The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,' George said. 'It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children-and society as a whole-by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.
'We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.'
'Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,' concluded Dr. George."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
" Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people..." In what universe?
This argument is one that would have been advanced by those who argued that Dred Scott was a piece of property, not a "person" under the law. (Which is exactly why the rightwingnuts who have just jumped on the "let's repeal the 14th Amendment" bandwagon are so dangerously misguided.)
Check the "equal protection" clause.
Check the "due process" clause.
You suggestthat a homosexual judge cannot be impartial?
Even an ultraconservative judge twice (unsuccessfuly) nominated by Ronnie Reagan before ultimately being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush?
Would a heterosexual judge be any more objective in this case? Why wouldn't the argument be that, as a heterosexual, s/he's biased AGAINST homosexuals?
And let's examine Judge Walker's decision. According to the rightwingnut screed, "Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition..." by ruling against Prop 8. But, if he had ruled in FAVORA of Prop 8, wouldn't he still be accused of abandoning his role as impartial umpire and jumping into the competition by the losing side?
The tyranny of the majority cannot rule if it goes beyond the basic notions of fairness expressed in the Constitution. This is just one of those cases.
Why is it that rightwingnuts are such proud defenders of the Constitution... except when they lose a case? (Which is, interestingly enough, happening more and more, thanks to the overreaching of the rightwingnut fringe.)
DiogenASS: homosexuals opinions are all decided and based on their homosexual lifestyle, how do they separate the lies and deceptions they live with everyday and form an opinion concerning heterosexual lifestyles that’s contrary to their own personal beliefs?
It’s called activism, all politicians and judges do it to some degree.
Wouldn't the thumbsucking leftwingloons argument be the same if a Christian Conservative Judge ruled against gay marriage?
You’re always declaring majority rules when it favors your leftwing ideology and agenda, but when the majority is against your leftwing agenda, you call that unfair and unjust?
Get a life moron!
Our government is based upon the concept of majority rules, true enough, AnonyMouse. But, like almost everything else in our system, we have checks and balances. Majority rules, but if the majority drops below a certain minimal standard of "decency", for lack of a better word, then we step in and uphold the rights of the minority.
Would leftwing loons make the same stupid arguments if a conservative judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8? Very very likely, depending on what argument the conservative judge relied upon in making his/her ruling.
As for a homosexual judge HAVING to be biased in all judgments, I disagree, just as I would disagree that a heterosexual judge would HAVE to be biased because of their heterosexuality.
What if the judge was a "self-loathing" homosexual and ruled in favor of Prop 8? Would you be complaining that he was biased then?
No, bottom line is this: you got a decision you don't like. You'll whine about it and make whatever semblance of an argument you can make to show that the judge was wrong. But guess what? His decision is the one that counts. Your opinion -- especially in this case -- means nothing.
You know, I just noticed the "headline" youo chose for this cut&paste job, Ms. MoreLies:
"Marriage Under Assault in California"
Can you name even ONE marriage that has been assaulted in California by this judge's ruling? If so, please let the Religious Rightwingnut Attorneys know because, as the judge pointed out, they haven't shown that ANYBODY has suffered any sort of tangible damage by virtue of gay marriage. Heterosexual married couples haven't suffered ANY diminution of their rights.
So HOW is "marriage under assault"?
Post a Comment