Thursday, August 5, 2010

Federal Judge Vaugh Walker finds California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional



Judge Vaugh Walker’s ruling should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed the trial.  What Judge Walker concluded was that: 
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. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. 
Here is the full court decision (h/t Legal Insurrection)

Perry v. Schwarzennegger - Trial Court Decision                                                                                             

This is by no means the end of the story. Judge Walker’s ruling will no doubt be challenged and this case will work its way up to the Supreme Court. This ruling will surely bring renewed focus onto Elena Kegan’s confirmation. How could it not, given the persistent questions regarding her sexual orientation?

On the issue of gay marriage, I think I hold an unpopular opinion among conservatives. In the battle over gay marriage, I believe conservative’s best efforts will only delay the inevitable. I say this because, time and time again when I discuss this issue with 20 and 30 year olds on both sides of the aisle, I find a large degree of acceptance. Unless these 20 and 30 year olds have some sort of epiphany regarding gay marriage, they will eventually undo all the roadblocks currently being put in place by this generation.

Because so many of the younger generation is on board with gay marriage, I have to wonder why gay rights activist insist upon foisting gay marriage on this generation. Time and time again this generation has made it quite clear they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Ten years from now when the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings gain political clout, gay rights activist will have what they want without much of a fight.

Gay rights activists’ current plan to use the court system to push the issue today seems like a risky endeavor. It may very well backfire and create a legal precedent that may take yet another generation to overturn. 

For a deeper legal analysis of Judge Walker’s ruling, skip over to Legal Insurrection blog.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I feel that it is BECAUSE they are fighting and willing to put it up front and into the spotlight that so many of us in our 20s and 30s are willing to listen and form opinions differing from earlier generations. For me at least I am willing to think about how I would feel if I was in their shoes.

The arguments that the defendants made that Prop 8 was for the good of the state ended up looking at the past definitions of history. One of those was in allowing bi-racial marriages. If the law had not made the decision that it had many moons ago, I would not have been legally allowed to marry my husband. So, I say go for it. Fight tooth and nail to be allowed to socially stand up and declare your intentions in public and before God (assuming you can find a church that will allow you to be married in the chapel)!

Renault said...

It's nice to hear sensible conservatism like this--it makes me much happier with my politics, heh. I don't ultimately see how true conservative principles--limited government, self-reliance, individualism--are helped by hindering gay marriage. If you find it wrong, don't practice it; thats essential conservatism. To try and force other people to live your beliefs just doesn't seem right to me. And I agree, I am worried that if this ends up failing, it'll take decades to overturn.

Trestin said...

Evil is evil, and must be fought.

Just a conservative girl said...

I agree, it will happen in my lifetime. The only way to stop it at this point is a constitutional admendment, which will never happen as it won't have enough support.

I am against it, but like you said the tide is turning in their favor.

rosewood59 said...

I'm a conservatist. I don't care one way or the other re gay marriage. I'm not about to march against gay marriage, nor will I march for gay marriage. It's a "so what" issue for me.

However, intrustive government regulation is not a "so what" issue for me. It all comes down to financial responsibility and genuine honesty. Let's turn the judges loose on the crooks running our government.

Chris said...

Since homosexuals only make up 3% of the American polulation should we give all finge sexual groups the same "rights"? We need to ask ourselves why we sanctioned heterosexual marrage in the first place. Wasn't it to procreate and the family structure is good for society. Gay marrage is only good for the gays. Should we give drivers license to the blind because of equal rights? I'm getting sick of the leftist lowest common denominator approach to everything. Why do I have to pay for the lefts fringe alt lifestyle? We need to raise our standards not lower them. And when it comes down to it most gays are made not born. Just look at the number of gay men and women that have been molested as kids. And don't get me started on the health issues of their risky behavior. We need to stop falling for the "gay is natural and normal" BS. For years the gay community has tried to tell us they were born that way. Science proved there are no genes and that it is most likely as disorder. Zoologist look at it as a mental disorder when they see it in zoos. Let's get real for a change.

Reed said...

Marriage is and was a means of delivering legitimacy to a child, which is, biologically, beyond the abilities of homosexual couples. It therefore belongs only to heterosexual couples. However, I have no problem with "civil unions," which are nothing more than common law marriages (which too, can provide legitimacy to a child) but in many states are no longer recognized because of the rejection of common law by many state legislatures. Thus, homosexual couples are petitioning for a recognition of a union that is denied heterosexual couples. Reinstate the principles of common law, and long term relations, no matter what the sexual orientation of the couples, are legal.

Liz said...

The thing that gets me about gay marriage is that straights should NOT have to redefine marriage. 2 gays getting married doesn't make them equal it makes them married.
I think gays should create a union of their own, call it gayiage or whatever the hell they want. Then get the same benefits as married people (nothing else though, that wouldn't be equal) and recognition by the state.

Why don't liberals ever have to compromise?

Related Posts with Thumbnails