SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
“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,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.
The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.
“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.
This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California. There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.” Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.
Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.
The people no longer have any real power in this country. Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law. Now this. And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism. Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism? Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think. They want you to give up. Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.
Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:
“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?
A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me. There’s your “equal protection.” On a platter.
If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss. But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.
How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process? All it does is create undue process. How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying? If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing? And by what objective standard that can never be overturned? And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more? Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?
The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane? Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter? Why can’t I marry my canary?
And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.
Gays want the right to marry. The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys. Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.
The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent. That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place. Why not give NAMBLA what it wants? It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right? That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent. Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?
NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.
NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.
Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency. Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.
And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we? We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.
Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road. Secular humanism simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.
Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?
People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections. Gay marriage proponents have none. If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”. And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.
The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”
That one really isn’t very hard to answer.
For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed. I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?
Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off. But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place. And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married. Because marriage is being destroyed.
When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).
We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage. And God said:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.
Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.
Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.
So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage. Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.