WASHINGTON, DC - In light of the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker to lift the stay on same sex marriages in California following his ruling to overturn Proposition 8, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage offered the following response:
“When a lower judge makes an unprecedented ruling, that totally overturns existing Supreme Court precedent, the normal thing for that judge to do is to stay his decision, and let the higher courts decide in an orderly fashion that respects the rule of law, if he’s right, or if he’s way off-base. Judge Walker’s ruling is more evidence he is not a neutral referee, he’s an activist on this issue. He doesn’t even want his ruling ignoring Supreme Court precedent and imposing gay marriage against the expressed wishes of the electorate appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Walker feels that that only the state politicians who were against Prop 8 have standing to appeal and the over 7 million California voters who supported Prop 8 shouldn’t be able to even present their position to a higher court. It’s outrageous. The People are supposed to be sovereign, not the politicians. This stay order will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and if necessary to Justice Anthony Kennedy, and I think it is a tactical mistake on Judge Walker’s part to display his injudicious zeal--once again--before Kennedy’s eyes.”
20 Comments
I thought Judge Walker did stay his decision. Does that mean that what I read here is now erroneous?:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/12/prop-8-judge-keeps-gay-marriage-on-hold.html
Californians and Americans are waking up to the awful realization that the written Constitution may have no authority, oaths of office might be meaningless, and our republic is severely threatened by tyrannical judges and politicians. Bolstered by the broken oaths and homosexual 'marriage' demands of Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Vaughn Walker has proven himself to be a tyrannical judicial activist devoted to satisfying himself, rather than being a faithful, duty-bound supporter and defender of the written Constitution.
Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This means that if Scott and Matt are to be married, and call it marriage, by their minister at their church, government has no right or jurisdiction to prevent this religious expression.
Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution also states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Our glorious Constitution upholds your right to follow your religious beliefs in the way that you believe, prevents others from forcing their religious view onto you, prevents you from forcing your beliefs onto others, prevents all states from enforcing any law that will abridge (shorten, or curtail) the privileges of the citizens, and prevents states from denying equal protection of the laws.
This means that a state law must apply equally to all of its citizens. So if opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and can take tax deductions because of that marital status, then the state must also allow same-sex couples to enjoy those same rights. It also means that if a state recognizes the joining of opposite-sex couples as “married”, then the same naming right and all its privileges must be conferred onto same-sex relationships.
A law must apply fairly and equally to all citizens, whether it imposes a penalty or a benefit.
Judge Walker is using the constitution appropriately. If it was always left to a majority vote, we wouldn't need a constitution. The rights of a disadvantaged minority should not be put to the electorate, they should be decided by the courts. That's what SCOTUS has ruled several times. (See West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette)
Brad, you are justifying tyranny of the minority. People have had enough. I sure would hate to be associated with a group of people who are actively subverting the will of the people through corrupt judges. I mean people are angry out there.
I'd like to know, has there been any reference to biological capacities of heterosexuals vs homosexuals in this whole argument? Do we keep trying to win atheists under morals that are, in origin, religious? Judge walker stated both kinds of unions to be equal, when under biological examination of healthy subjects, they are not equal. If this point can be made in a court, we might gain some substantial ground. We have got to STOP USING FAITH IN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FAITHLESS.
No, what he is ignoring the will of the people, the very principles of democracy our country was founded upon. The institution of marriage is inspired by God, and was completely ignored by the district court along with democratic principles. Yes two wolves and a lamb can vote on what to eat for dinner, the lamb may not like the result, but it is democratic.
The instituiton of marriage may be inpired by God, but it is a civil law. We have sepreation of church and state so it's not relevant that God may have inspired marriage - a point I don't concede by the way. You just refuse to accept thereality of our constitution.
Gay activists say: "The rights of a disadvantaged minority should not be put to the electorate, they should be decided by the courts. "
Don't let gay activits kid you with this argument; they're right, UNTIL THE COURTS DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
BUT:
a) the constitution must be defined throught a democratic process; otherwise, who define the constitution?
b) the decision of judge Walker is clearly against the democratic process, since Prop8 was a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution wasn't handed down by God, on the top of Mount Sinai -- It and all of it's various Amendments were ratified by THE PEOPLE.
Anyone who thinks the 14th Amendment ratified a right so SSM in 1868 is on drugs, or worse.
Talk about forcing your morality down people's throats... Stalin must be proud.
There has never been a limitation on marriage based on sexual orientation. All citizens are created equal. All citizens can qualify themselves for marriage if they choose. It's a choice, not an immutable condition. There is no right to marry whomever or whatever you want whenever. The law applies equally to everyone.
So I have a great idea Jakes. Let's vote to take away the rights of black people to vote. I mean, if we get a majority, it's ok, right?
TC Matthews, you are insane. What you said would be like if vegans passed a law requiring everyone to be vegetarian, since it applies to everyone equally.
For two consenting adults, there IS a right to marry.
If you want to restrict marriage to one man and one woman then simply remove all the laws connected to marriage. Then its not a problem. No inheritance benefit, no child care benefits, no healthcare benefits. But you can then restrict who can marry
There is the issue! Being a Christian, omnivore, or Libertarian are choices; sexual orientation and race are not. People are born gay, people are not born attracted to their sisters, there is no such gene for that, so please don't go to that "slippery slope" argument by saying people shouldn't be allowed to marry whatever they want. We are talking about consenting adults.
There is no gay gene. Even the APA has gone back on that doctrine.
Mark, There is only one reason for government to give incentives to people who marry, that is because they want to encourage responsible procreation. Two tax paying grandmothers living in a house sharing rent together are also unqualified for those benefits, as are ALL other kinds of relationships. There is only one marriage.
Kieran,
The color of your skin is an immutable trait. People are people, regardless of the color of their skin, or how they act. Marriage law must apply equally to everyone, luckily, it does. There is no litmus test for color, height, weight, or orientation at the city marriage license desk.
What you are advocating is more like forcing everyone to eat meat instead of allowing people to choose. In marriage law, everyone can choose whether they want to qualify themselves for marriage or not. It's completely up to them, with no outside interference. There's no forcing involved. It's a personal choice.
TC - Isn't forcing people to eat meat rather than choose analogous to forcing gay people to marry someone of the opposite gender? And before you respond that no one is forcing anyone to marry, I'll respond - in your example, no one is forcing anyone to eat.
An Analogy:
A man walks into a restaurant. He goes up to the counter and without looking at the menu orders a double bacon cheeseburger.
The woman behind the counter smiles pleasantly and says, “Oh, I’m sorry. This is a vegetarian restaurant. We don’t serve meat here. However, there is a restaurant next door that does and one across the street that does as well. Also, just around the corner there is a restaurant that serves a bacon double cheeseburger that has been rated as the best in the whole state.”
The man is irritated and says, “But I want to have one here. How can you judge me for eating meat?! You are discriminating against me for my choice to eat meat!!”
The woman says, “No, I am not judging you at all. I feel that we all have the right to believe whatever we want. However, I feel that it is wrong to kill animals for food. I recognize that not everyone believes this. I have no problem with people who choose to eat meat, nor do I try to force my opinions on them. I have no desire to take away other people’s right to eat meat. I have simply made the decision that I will not serve meat at my restaurant. After all, I have spent a lot of time and money building up my restaurant. I feel that I should have the choice as to what I serve here.”
The man is very angry. Red faced he leaves the restaurant yelling, “I have the right to eat meat!”
One week later the man comes back to the vegetarian restaurant. He has a court order forcing the woman to serve the man a bacon double cheeseburger, even though she does not believe in eating meat.
“What about my right to believe that eating meat is wrong?” asks the woman, incredulous that she is being forced to do something that goes against her beliefs. “It doesn’t harm this man for me to believe that, and I have given him several other options of places that will happily make him a cheeseburger.”
You may think this story is silly and absurd. Of course nobody would ever force a person who has a moral belief against eating meat to cook a cheeseburger for them!
1) Isn’t a society more diverse if it has people who believe entirely different things but have a mutual respect for one another? Yes. Diversity does not mean that we are all forced to eat the same thing or live the same way. It means that we create an environment where we can appreciate and love each other in spite of our differences. We can work together in the areas we are like-minded, and agree to disagree in the areas where we are not.
2) Just by the fact that the woman chooses not to cook the man a cheeseburger, does that mean that she hates him? Does it mean she wants to force him to stop eating meat? No. She understands that she has a different belief, and she knows that there are many places he can get a cheeseburger, which she is fine with. She is not trying to force the restaurants that serve meat to close their doors.
3) Shouldn’t the woman have more tolerance for the man by cooking him a cheeseburger? According to http://www.dictionary.com, Tolerance is defined as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.” This means that the woman should be tolerant of the man’s beliefs and desires by permitting him to have a cheeseburger elsewhere. Likewise, the man should be tolerant of the woman by permitting her to serve only vegetarian food in her restaurant. If there is nowhere for the man to get a cheeseburger, then we have a problem. If the woman is forced to cook cheeseburgers, then we have a problem. We need to foster an environment of mutual tolerance. That means tolerance for BOTH sides of the issue. Not a one-sided tolerance where the attitude is, “if you don’t believe what I do you are foolish, hateful, mean, intolerant, etc…”
So it is with the marriage debate. I should not be forced to compromise my deeply held views because of yours.
Beetlebabee said it best as to why there should not be a new constitutional right created for SSM "So it is with the marriage debate. I should not be forced to compromise my deeply held views because of yours."