Proposition 8: Liberal Judges Trump Democracy Yet Again
U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinions matter more than the voters of California. I figured it would be prudent to let you read that to see how it feels. All too often liberal, activist judges have been the key movers and shakers of the liberal agenda. We’ve seen it before, most notably with the legalization of murder of unborn children.
Judge Walker’s decision basically ignored any argument from the supporters of Prop. 8 and gave a sweeping, albeit arbitrary, approval of the opponents’ agenda. Here are some of his 80 enumerated findings:
- Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter. (Finding of Fact (FF) #19)
- How the State defines civil marriage (FF #34)
- The benefits of civil marriage (to the State and the individuals). (FF #35-41)
- A definition of sexual orientation. (FF #43)
- Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. (FF #46, p. 75)
- No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation. (FF #46)
- The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (FF #47)
- Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians. (FF #51, p. 79)
- Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage. (FF #52, p. 80)
- The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from denial of marriage to same-sex couples. (FF #64-68, 77-78)
- Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination. (FF #74, p. 96)
- Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (FF #77, p. 101)
As Albert Mohler pointed out, this essentially means that there is no valid argument in public policy but a secular argument. The fundamental problem with this is that questions of public policy often times deal with moral issues. Considering the majority of people derive their moral convictions from religious or spiritual beliefs, it is hard for me to understand why we should substitute the moral reasoning of the majority in exchange for an acceptance of the secular minority’s “correct” morality.
Hope remains, however, that Proposition 8 will stand. This case will move to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of the most liberal courts in the country that is based in San Francisco, who will likely uphold the decision. It’s no secret that this case will wind up at the Supreme Court’s doorstep. Should they choose to hear the case, we will have a final answer that will define marriage for decades to come.