Wednesday, August 4, 2010

No surprise

As expected, Judge Vaughn Walker in California has declared that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, primarily because he doesn't agree that the word "marriage" ever did or ever will mean anything other than the temporary union of any two (or more--wait for that one) people who want tax breaks. Given that Judge Walker is himself a gay man, I don't think anyone ought to be surprised.

More and more I'm thinking that it's time to end civil marriage. It means absolutely nothing except the wedding party of a couple of people who have been sexually active since they were in junior high, and who now want a Big Important Event at which to announce to everybody that they're sort of more committed than they were back when they insisted that their choice to move in with each other was proof that they were in a committed relationship, which itself was sort of more committed than back when they just expected sex at the end of a date. Oh, and next time they get pregnant, they might not abort, unless the pregnancy happens before they're done enjoying the whole "newlywed" thing. And, of course, if they're two guys or two gals, hey, no worries! Child manufacturing and purchasing kind of precludes any "surprise" pregnancies.

I'm sick to death of the culture of death and its endless fascination with perversion. Anybody who doesn't see the devil at work in our country isn't paying attention.


Anonymous said...

read the decision. he had no choice. all of the evidence presented compels one determination only: that law is unconstitutional.

David said...

I'm somewhat baffled...because he's gay, he came to that conclusion? We shouldn't be shocked? Gays can't come to indifferent or objective opinions on matters pertaining to them?

Honestly, Erin? Every time a straight man or woman judge decides against gay marriage or gay rights, do you conclude it's because they're "straight" or because it's the "right" thing? Would you accept the argument of someone saying that you can't objectively impugn a moral high ground to gays because you're straight?

You seem to want people (gays) to have more to their identity and life than their sexuality, but then there are posts like these that show you don't actually believe it's possible for a gay man or woman to separate their identity from their fact, you don't even allow them that grace.

Anyway, I have not had the time to read the decision yet, likely this evening, so I'll save any lay judgments on how his sexuality might have compelled his deciding. If you have and that's your conclusion, well, I certainly hope that's not how Walker decided the case.

Red Cardigan said...

David, do take the time to read the decision. I've read through much of it, and it really supports only two possible options: the judge is biased, or the judge is a complete moron. Naturally, I lean toward bias as the more charitable interpretation in this case.

Kim said...

"Anybody who doesn't see the devil at work in our country isn't paying attention."

Yep. I've been thinking that too, lately, more and more. How cool that we are living in the end times, no? And how terrifying. Hoping (selfishly) that these "end times" will keep going for another couple millenia!

Remember this one? (Helpful when I'm feeling "sick to death of the culture of death")...

"Enemy-occupied territory — that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage."

-- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

LarryD said...

Kim - that's an awesome quote! I've heard an apologist say similarly that we are living behind enemy lines.

Anonymous said...

"Given that Judge Walker is himself a gay man, I don't think anyone ought to be surprised."

On one hand, everybody has his or her identity and their social location. Never going to get a perfectly "objective" referee for anything. On the other hand, the way this judge has comported himself...this stinks to high heaven. Just because we have biases is no excuse to excel in them.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives have to fight to have something recognized that’s always been there (2nd Amendment), and liberals just get to make up new stuff.

Charlie said...

Anonymous is half right. I'm sure this judge was predisposed to rule as he did, but judges really are constrained by what plaintiffs and defendants present to them, and what their lawyers think is good strategy.

The marriage laws every state had until the past twenty years, and most still do, are not on their face unconstitutional. The core constitutional argument is not about "harm" done to gay couples, but about "equal protection of the laws."

I suspect that attorneys defending Prop 8 were too tied up in their own moral qualms, and too easily drawn into the trap of trying to present a "rational basis" for the state to "discriminate."

The proper legal argument is that the state has NOT discriminated at all!!! Every plaintiff has the undoubted right to marry. They don't want to marry. How hard is it to make a case that a heterosexual union is a DIFFERENT relationship from a homosexual union? In fact, isn't it unfair that gay men can't enter into a lesbian relationship if they want to? That is just as much denial of "equal protection of the laws." However, courts are without power to provide a remedy to such a complaint. How does a man have a lesbian relationship with a woman anyway?

Rebecca in CA said...

Charlie that is an interesting point. I have not been following the details of how the prop 8 defenders spoke in the courtroom, but it sounds as though they let themselves be cornered.