Prop 8 Reversal: Extreme Judicial Activism on Marriage
Today’s decision by a federal district judge in San Francisco striking down state constitutional protections for marriage and inventing a spurious federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage is an example of extreme judicial activism. Moreover, it is an affront to the millions of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008 after months of vigorous public debate.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people of California, and the United States, have made clear in numerous ways that they have not consented to the redefinition of marriage. For the past two decades they have considered the arguments advanced by some for overturning marriage as it has been understood in our country. In state after state — 45 in all – they have chosen to reaffirm the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They have done so because they understand that establishing same-sex marriage would transform the institution into a set of private interests rather than buttress it as a multi-generational reality binding mothers, fathers and their children biologically, socially and legally.
From the beginning of this litigation we have pointed out Judge Vaughn Walker’s trail of activist rulings, from his inappropriate decision to convert a legal proceeding into a show trial, to his failure to follow legal procedure in ordering live video streaming of the trial. Fortunately, Judge Walker’s abrogation of the rule of law on the latter issue was swiftly rebuffed by the Supreme Court last January when it vacated his decision to broadcast the trial.
Judge Walker’s ruling today similarly abrogates the rule of law. Marriage has enjoyed unique status because unions of husband and wife are, in fact, unique, and because they uniquely serve the common good in ways that same-sex combinations simply cannot. We are confident the Supreme Court will reject Judge Walker’s view that the people of California cannot protect the meaning of marriage in their state constitution.
We join our voices with the clear decisions rendered by large margins in the vast majority of the states, and in every state where a popular vote has been held over the past two decades. It is time for the American people to stand up in support of their right to protect marriage. Judicial tyranny on the question of marriage must not be allowed to succeed.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
And the gist of the gay marriage problem is far from being discussed. Some people going into the very core of our civilization itself to defend/attack gay marriage lol. Let me simplify this once and for all. If I wind up in a hospital, my wife has all decision making power if I am in a coma. Legally, she can pull the plug. If I die, she gets any benefits as my spouse, and she gets to decide what happens to my belongings.
THIS IS what this is about! A gay couple who decide to live together as partners have that right. This is not about the bible or a moral standpoint. Everything else is window dressing. You want to concentrate on window dressing, fine, but the real issue is legal representation of a person's choice in his/her partner. Simple as that. And until the laws begin to grant rights to ALL people, we have failed as a society.
This law doesn't mean you bring homosexuals to live in your home and applaud their lifestyles, sexual tastes and desires. This law, simply put equalizes humanity above all else.
Stop making this about what it isn't. Because the only thing you are doing is eroding your own rights.
Nobody is asking anyone to perform oral sex on their peers. What they are asking for is equal treatment under the law. Give it to them, give it to all, and go home and live your life.
topapito. Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
It was 138 pages which refuted the proposition on 80 different points. It is extremely well written and will be hard to dismiss. The lawyers representing their client are both rep and dem and said this is not about politics but basic rights that are not up to a vote. They are protected by the 14th amendment. Rights people are just that rights and not subject to a vote. They are guaranteed by the constitution. Read all 1138 pages before you respond to this post.
138 pages. He never cites same sex marriage as a right. Just marriage. All other arguments in the verdict aside, without redefining it, his verdict doesn't have ground to stand on. Marriage, as the articles author and mrBook have noted is between a man and a woman. All the laws about it are based on that precedence. It takes a law to change that precedence. An act of local state legislature. Or in the case of the Fed recognizing a marriage law, an act of Congress. In any case, this judge is trying to create law citing precedence for other laws as support for his new one.
He talks about how one should have the rights that are afforded to all-the right to marry. Also, part of the case hinged on the kids and the misnomer that they are not just as happy and healthy as other children raised by a man and a wife. My feelings are that any family unit is a family regardless of how it is made and that to deny this right to anyone is no one else's business. Take the church, the bible and politics out of it and we are talking about loving families. Also, why shouldn't gays and lesbians have a right to screw it up as we heteros? A man and a woman have not done so well so far if you look at statistics so let others have a chance.:)
The case he makes hinges on the right to marry. Without redefining marriage first his case has nothing to stand on. If marriage is a union between a man and a woman then gays are not denied the opportunity to take advantage of this social arrangement at all. If you redefine it however to make marriage a union between two consenting adults of any gender then yeah. He has a point. But he first has to redefine it. Those cases he references are rulings about the "right to marry" afforded to every person in the US when the definition of what marriage is wasn't in question. They're all based one the man-woman paradigm and so to toss that out and claim they meant all along marriage between two consenting adults of any mix of genders is where the claim against him of judicial activism comes from.
And as for heterosexuals having it pretty bad, I wrote a research paper on this subject a year or so ago. Yes 50% of hetero marriages divorce. And from European countries that allow homosexual marriage another 50% divorce. So it would seem like they're not a detriment in any case right? The only problem with that is heterosexual marriages have a 50% divorce rate after 20 years. While homosexual marriages have the same rate after 5-10. I'll try and find the paper and cite the source for you but in any case, there's some statistics for you.
Also check out this page
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/index.html
and read through her review of other peoples research. Let me know what you think.
homosexuality is environmentally based I stop reading. Her claims are based on homosexuality being a choice which I totally disagree with. Also, these comments were to show only one position in the debate so she searched for studies that were like her beliefs and not independent.
are these studies not valid because the results are consistent with her belief? Or not valid because they disagree with yours?
I think that the problem is that thinking that it's environmentally based when attraction is a chemical reaction - that has been proven - makes no sense.
You can no more make a straight man attracted to a man as you can a straight man attracted to a woman who is the complete opposite of his 'type.'
I think it is all genetically based. I think the environment has nothing to do with it. I don't think the studies have any validity whether they agree with me or not. I as I have said before who would choose a life where you are outcasts and thought of as "sick" and constantly challenged because of something totally biological. Is that clearer?