It is a terrible decision. It is anti democratic. It is completely wrong procedurally.

I would vote for gay marriage. But it is not a right floating out there to be recognized by some judge. It is a new social construct. You can argue it is good. You can argue it is not good. The constitution neither grants it or prevents you from passing a law.

So if you dislike Proposition 8, have David Geffen and other supporters fund a petition drive to bring a new referendum to California voters and amend the state constitution to allow gay marriage. Democracy is hard. But if gay marriage is such a good idea, how about persuading a majority of California voters to agree with you first?

One of two openly gay federal judges decided this case. Excuse me judge, rationalize much?

I think the problem with elites is that after a certain amount of power and wealth has been achieved, they begin to resent moral obligations as being unnecessary speedbumps on the road to selfish hedonism. So they jettison morality in order to pursue happiness more freely. The problems occur when they push their view of moral relativism on those who are not wealthy and powerful enough to escape the consequences of dismissing the moral law.

It’s easy for elites to espouse same-sex marriage. They aren’t the ones who have to grow up without either a mother or a father. They won’t be facing the consequences of their judicial activism – other people’s children will be.

I wonder if a gay judge in a long term relationship would want to get married ?
Gee, I wonder if a married fundamental christian judge would have been allowed to oversee this case ?

This is a great decision. Let the ruling class continue to show its ugliest face. Pray that it does so!

One of two openly gay federal judges decided this case. Excuse me judge, rationalize much?

No need to “go there,” really. It doesn’t matter who the judge is, or how he gets his jollies. Rather the issue is the incompatibility of his arguments with a republican form of government.

‘A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy’ Therefore, it makes no difference if I marry a rat/pig/dog/boy(not to be confused with ManBearPig).

While it is decidedly anti-democratic, knowing that the judge is gay colors his worldview, just as being straight colors my worldview.

Can’t we just skip the 9th Circus Appeals, and go straight to the Supreme Court? Everyone knew how this was going to be ruled when it went to the 9th Circuit.

Actually, something relevant to the plaintiff’s case would be germane.

Germaine is the name of the person who wrote The Female Eunuch.

How long has this issue been going on? At least since the 60′s right? I hope this comment doesn’t reflect my age.

1) Well done, Stacy.

2) Regarding the elite:

It is the core belief of any Leftist that he or she has THE ANSWER to bringing about ‘Heaven on Earth’. The Left believes they are THE Enlightened Ones who possess the wisdom and knowledge to re-engineer the filthy and chaotic world into a sterile and very well-ordered machine [note the absence of anything that can reasonably be called 'human' in those adjectives]. In their twisted way of reasoning, they think a life free of worry or care or dirt is the ideal life. ‘Ideal’ is the key world here. The New Little Oxford English Dictionary defines this word as ‘perfect; existing only in idea’. In other words, an ideal is something that cannot physically exist in the real world. It can only exist in the mind and/or soul [the latter does not exist for the Leftist]—places where perfection can be envisioned, but are not concrete. An ideal is a fancy, a wish, and, like all such musings, rarely applicable or possible in the real world. Christians and Jews know this. They strive to be perfect like God, but they know that they will never achieve His perfection. The Leftist, on the other hand, has shedded any trace of humility and modesty, and believes that the ideas conceived in the laboratory of the brain can be implemented in the real world without alteration. This attitude, combined with their certitude that they have conceived of THE ANSWER, leads them to believe that any means necessary to employ to establish their ‘paradises’ are justified.

To bring this back to the original point: the Leftists believe they have THE ANSWER and it is the ONLY way to make the world as it should be. They also believe that the vast majority of people are not as ‘enlightened’ as their elite group are. Therefore, to provide the world with ‘Heaven on Earth’, they must force it upon the ignorant majority. Okay…’how best to accomplish this?’ they ask themselves. The answer that rings in their skulls is ‘through the accumulation of power by the illuminated elites who “get it”, are with the program, can be trusted with power’. Hence, the pathological need by all Leftists to gather power unto their elitest-selves.

Immanentizing The Eschaton, indeed!

Well, I fall into the category that judge used. I am against gay marriage because I view marriage as primarily a religous institution that happens to be recognized by the government.

I will even go as far to say that I would rather that government not recoginize any marriage than to recoginize gay marriage.

Well, I fall into the category that judge used. I am against gay marriage because I view marriage as primarily a religous institution that happens to be recognized by the government.

I will even go as far to say that I would rather that government not recoginize any marriage than to recoginize gay marriage.

Mr O-McC for RSM, whoops

Well said at #7 Stacy.

And there are plenty of hetero judges who think they have a role in making laws too. I do not care who the judge is sleeping with, I can what his or her judicial orientation is.

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
– U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger

Man+woman+sex=child
man+man+sex does not=child
woman+woman+sex does not=child

I can see the difference. Is he blind?

Actually, something relevant to the plaintiff’s case would be germane.

Fixed.

Fixed (neutered) is what Germain Greer really wants for men. And on it goes…

“To say that men and women, as such, are different enough that they cannot be made truly equal in a free society is today such a controversial assertion as to seem wildly irresponsible — even though it is demonstrably true.”

No it isn’t. My generation grew up having a reasonably equal set of gender norms, and it has severely reduced the amount of actual inequality compared to the prior generation. I see no reason for that trend not to continue. Show your work.

Jumping into the lion’s den here, but I have to opine that, rather than an “elite” decision or an “activist” decision, this was a constitutional decision.

1. The beastiality/children/trees etc. argument is silly; only those capable of entering into a legally binding contract and giving consent will ever be able to marry, and nothing will ever change that.

2. The majoritarian argument quickly breaks down to absurdity: If a majority of Californians had voted to disallow interracial marriage, or ban free speech for certain religions, or institute the death penalty for shoplifting, or do something similarly unconstitutional, I would hope nobody here would say “but…but…a majority voted for it!” The laws that result from popular referenda must still be constitutional–and that’s what courts are for. Plus, you wouldn’t be lauding the majority had 52% of the voters _rejected_ Prop. 8. Come to think of it, it’s conservatives like you who repeatedly remind us that we live in a “representative democracy” with “checks and balances” (eg courts), not a direct democracy, so the majoritarian argument is wildly inconsistent.

3. Read the decision: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/35374462-Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf
…and feel free to explain why you think it was an incorrect decision. In fact, note that the defenders of Prop. 8 promised the court they would prove things they never even tried to prove, called unqualified witnesses, and were never able to establish a compelling state interest in restricting marital rights. Note that “Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and called not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court.”

4. The wording of Proposition 8 was the EXACT SAME as the wording of the older Proposition 22, which had been invalidated by the Supreme Court, meaning that even absent every other argument, the judge could simply have gone with precedent, since no new facts were introduced in the most recent case.

5. Conservative arguments that the decision will “hurt the family unit” are not merely unwarranted, but fallacious to reassert in the face of proponents’ inability to offer a shred of proof for it in court. Courtrooms are where advocates are forced to answer each others’ arguments. In this case, the alleged compelling interest argument was circular: In order to prove it, one first must assume the very thing one is trying to prove: that same-sex relationships are undesirable for any reason other than religious preference–a reason prohibited by both the establishment clause and the equal protection clause.

6. The argument that the judge’s sexual preference proves he was biased works both ways–a straight judge would be just as biased according to that standard.

In sum, show me a compelling state interest and maybe you’ll have an argument. But since the greatest legal minds on your side failed to do that, I very much doubt you will succeed.

However, if the establishment and equal protection clauses rub you the wrong way, you can always move to a country governed by a theocracy, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. I doubt you’ll have to deal with same-sex marriage there.

Monogamous and heterosexual marriage has quite a long and successful secular history, irrespective of religious beliefs (to which I do adhere).

It was this institution which enabled human civilization. The primal, animal instinct is for men to impregnate as many females as possible to ensure perpetuation of their genes. This left women raising children alone, which was a disastrous situation for the species and for civilization: not only was child mortality high, but also women struggled to survive as they had not only to feed themselves but also their children with little help. Women tended to give the children as much food as possible, even to their own demise, as the instinct again is to perpetuate the species.

The institution of monogamy brought huge and unprecedented benefits, as the division of labor became more efficient. More women and children survived, and in the end this also promoted the men’s genes. It enabled civilization itself once the primary animal needs for food and shelter were more readily handled.

Now, I’m all for the right to contract between adults. But the state gains nothing by extending the benefits of marriage to gay couples, because they cannot reproduce. The benefits heterosexual married couples draw can be recouped with interest in their contribution of children to society, something same-sex couples just can never do. So the benefits granted to same-sex couples can never be a productive investment for society, as the money must be taken from others to pay the benefits with no hope of return.

That, in a nutshell, is the secular argument against same-sex marriage benefits bestowed by the state.

@Matt,
1. Stand by for Sharia. Also, while we’re in the business of judically producing rights ex nihilo, the beastiality/children/trees move from silly to probabilistic.
2. The majoritarian argument, rooted in universal human history, is far from absurd.
3. A positive statement about the meaning of the word ‘marriage’, for the spectrum of motives, is a positive statement.
4. Maybe, if the CA Court is that far removed from the will of the people, an amendment to implement a system of forcibly retiring the judges would be a better remedy.
5. No, really, the entire argument is about the destruction of the family unit. In order to prove it, an example of worldwide, cratered reproduction rates is but one example.
6. It is also possible the judge is an abject fool, elevated by a system that seems to elevate increasingly foolish twerps to high positions (Bolton). Lot of that about these days.
In sum, let’s allow the grandchildren on both sides to hold the debate about the wisdom of the ideas in question. Foolishness is fruitless.
However, if you think the Equal Protection Clause applies to private, sexual behavior, then you can always support ideas that weaken your civilization, and the theocracy will come to you. I’m sure Mayor Bloomberg will officiate at the first same-sex ceremony at the Cordoba House, for example, triumph of toleration that that would be.

Well put, Smitty. To bolster your first point…

In 2003 people said Justice Scalia was ‘crazy’ when, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said the decision would inevitably lead to the courts ruling ‘gay marriage’ constitutional using the 14th Amendment. Well, it is rather obvious, in light of the decisions that have come out of state and federal courts across the country, that Nino is a prophet.

None of this is surprising. Ideology inevitably leads to taking ideas to their logical conclusions outside of reality because ideas are laboratory experiments. Same sex marriage is one of the stops along the way to the end of opening marriage to every kind and type of combination — logic demands it…and soon the ideologues will, too.

In light of the logic used by Judge Walker, Matt, what is to stop a future judge from ruling that one can marry a close relative, or multiple people, or a minor? The answer is ‘NOTHING’.