The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 a
 >
>>
California Judge Rules Californians Can't Amend Constitution

[picapp align="none" wrap="false" link="term=car+crash&iid=9285414" src="http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9285414/coke-zero-400/coke-zero-400.jpg?size=500&imageId=9285414" width="500" height="333" /]

Constitutional!

I was way too busy today to keep up with any news.  So after coming home and having dinner, I sat down to peruse my favorite blog sites.  I just wanted to see what was up today.  I found hell had descended upon us.

I was reading Ace's blog and found that U.S. District Judge Walker had ruled the Constitutional amendment that was put in place by the passage of Proposition 8 (by a large majority vote) was unconsitutional.  Gateway Pundit also had a post.  Nigel of 6MB had the most poignant post up, with reference to Judge Walker.  Michelle Malkin also has her say.

However I would like to say a few words.

First, the judge ruled that there is a Constitutional guarantee in the Constitution to full and equal treatment.  Thus, if marriage is allowed by law for one group of people, it must be allowed for all people.  Might I highlight that we have thousands of laws that treat people differently.  We have the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution that demands everyone has the right to own and carry guns.  Yet, do we not bar certain groups of people from owning them?  Do we not bar certain groups of people from owning certain TYPES of guns that other groups can have.

Do we not bar certain people from freely existing in society while others are allowed to walk freely while even committing the same offense against society?  Aren't some people are charged more for services while others are charged less (e.g. college tuition)?  Aren't some businesses are denigrated and charged more fees than other businesses that are seen in a more popular light?

If we are to allow gays to also claim the right to the sanctity of marriage, then must we also allow men to marry their horses?  Are we discriminating, morally, when we stop women from marrying their Great Danes?

The Judge said that citizens can not make laws that discriminate against people based on some morally percieved notion. 

Because, as we all know, our laws did not evolve out of any form of morality or moral belief system. 

Riiiiiigghhtt

This is just another slap at the Christain religion that does nothing but discriminate against us and this nation. 

Listen, if you want to suckle your same-sex mate and then claim marriage, .. FINE.  Go to a country that allows it.  I hear Iran is pretty ameniable.  Our country doesn't like to extend the Holy sanctity of marriage to those we perceive as living a life of perversion.  We created laws that sought to put perverts, immoralists, and moral law breakers behind bars.  Are these laws now unconstitutional since they were enacted by the moral dictates of Christians?

But, let's broaden this discussion.

Have we not been told that federal laws preempt state and local laws?  Haven't we been told that if the feds have made a ruling or law, then the state can not do the same thing (e.g. Arizona immigration SB1070)?

Question:  Don't we have a federal law that defines what "marriage" is?  So.......  wouldn't then this federal law take precedent over this judge's ruling?

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex.

37 states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008.

[UPDATE:]  Course, the ruling might have been a forgone conclusion.

[UPDATE2]  Gerard Bradley from the FoxForum (whoever that is) summed this up rather nicely so I wanted to paste what he said here.  Despite not knowing who he is.

One would think, for example, that there are some rational bases for saying that marriage is what our society and our law have understood it to be for a few hundred years: the union of a man and a woman. Not in Judge Walker’s court.

One might think, too, that some (and perhaps a lot) of what the plaintiffs’ “expert” witnesses against traditional marriage would be branded by a fair-minded judge as the fruit of passionate political advocacy, and not dispassionate scholarly analysis? Not in Judge Walker’s court.

Read the opinion and you will see that, when it comes to the defense witnesses in favor of Proposition 8, Judge Walker takes no prisoners, gives no quarter, shows no tender mercies.

He portrays those who supported traditional marriage in the Proposition 8 fight as not only wrong. They are wrong in every decisive respect, and utterly so.

But their position is not only utterly wrong. It lacks any basis in reason.

Belief in traditional marriage amounts to harboring a private prejudice; it is a barely concealed desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The traditionalists’ “arguments” are not even arguments. They are instead question-begging “tautolog[ies].”

At the end of the day all that Judge Walker can really see in the understanding of marriage that humanity credited as true until a few years ago is this: opposite sex-couples simply feel themselves to be “superior” to same-sex couples. Period. Full stop.

and this...

...Judge Walker could potentially benefit from his own ruling....

shows that he was biased and should have recused himself from the case. 

He must be soliciting for a seat on the 9th Circus Court.

 

[UPDATE]  It would seem that his ruling provides even more evidence of his activism and bias.  From CNSNews.com:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother.
 
Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father.
 
Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in his opinion.

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment,” the judge stated in finding of fact No. 70. “The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”

  #ObamaLand


Comments:

#1 donkeyrock 05-Aug-2010

Soooo... some people are denied rights, therefore it's okay to deny rights? WTF?

#2 captainfish 05-Aug-2010

Obviously it is, since we do it day in and day out.  Why is it ok, or not ok, in some circumstances but not others?

If we are going to rule that all people should be treated completely equal in ALL things, then DO IT.  If we are going to rule that all morality based laws are unconstitutional then DO IT!

But, you are going to get one hell of a country if you do.

Once you go down the road of removing morality-based laws, then you need to look at laws that are...... tenuous.  Laws that take away freedoms to do whatever one wants.  Why bar actions that make some people feel uncomfortable?  Freedom should be completely free, right?  Should we be free from all morality and limitations?

When does it stop?

#3 captainfish 05-Aug-2010

If we are going to hold everything and everyone equal, then stories like this should be applauded.

Yet, as we all know, people get all upset over the govt's actions because its a little kid on a street corner.

Powered by Snarf · Contact Us