Gee, what a surprise: the federal judge who sought to turn the Prop 8 case over which he presided into a show trial/propaganda forum for gay rights activists, only to be rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court, strikes down California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. Who’d have thought it? According to the Associated Press:
A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Right. The chances of Walker granting the proponents’ request is roughly the same as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s chances of winning the next Miss Universe pageant. Ditto for the proponents’ chances with the Ninth Circuit. This one’s going to the U.S. Supreme Court, and nothing before it will mean much.
UPDATE: I got the “opponents” of Prop 8 and the “proponents” mixed up. That’s been corrected.
UPDATE: The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United weighed in predictably:
This is a tremendous step forward for individual freedom and church-state separation. Aggressive and well-funded religious groups conspired to take away the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples in California. That was wrong, and I am delighted that the court has ruled the way it has.
Got that? A political campaign that garnered millions of votes to overturn the fiat of an unelected judiciary is a “conspiracy.” So much for the meaning of words.
In a November 2008 referendum, voters narrowly approved Proposition 8, a ballot measure that removed the right of same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages. The referendum was dominated by lavishly funded political front groups representing the Roman Catholic bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and fundamentalist Protestant churches.
Actually, spending by the two sides of Prop 8 was almost even. But the proponents never should have been allowed to campaign, because they are theocratic poopyheads with the temerity to disagree with AU on a public policy issue.
Lynn said powerful religious interest groups should never have been allowed to change civil marriage laws to reflect their doctrinal teachings.
They weren’t. That was done by the voters of California after hearing the arguments presented by both sides of the Prop 8 campaign, including the United Church of Christ and Episcopal Church in opposition. But that wasn’t the outcome Rev. Lynn favored, so that means his opponents must have been engaged in a “conspiracy” to overturn a brand-new, judicially-mandated “right.”
August 4, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Why such sarcastic hate?
August 4, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Why such a predictable, content-free, jump-right-to-the-smear comment? There is no “hate” here, just statements of realities. Go ahead: show me where I’m wrong about any of the facts that I stated:
1) Walker tried to put the trial on YouTube, an unprecedented judicial act meant to provide a forum for those whose case he agreed with, and SCOTUS stopped him.
2) He will not grant Prop 8 supporters request for a stay in allowing gay marriages in California.
3) The Ninth Circuit will uphold him.
4) SCOTUS will rule, and the rest is simply the preliminaries.
Which way Walker would rule has been obvious since the beginning of the trial. There’s nothing “hateful” about pointing that out.
August 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm
To be fair, #2 is wrong. The press is reporting that he did grant an immediate stay.
August 4, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Interesting, how “I disagree with your point of view” = “hate”, isn’t it?
August 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Jason: The stay is only until he has heard arguments (on August 6) on the request for one that would be in effect until the 9th Circuit has ruled.
August 4, 2010 at 10:38 pm
This really should not surprise us. The world is sinful, and will seek to legitimize its sinful desires and attitudes. The danger for Christians is to make homosexuality the only sin we are concerned about. I know that is not what you are saying David, but it is somewhat what the world hears. The gospel transforms lives, and Christ can call people to himself who are homosexual. It doesn’t mean that they will be heterosexual immediately, or that they won’t struggle with homosexuality the rest of their lives, but it does mean that Christ can savce them and transform their lives. The world sees sin in the Christian church and calls us hypocrites. We need to be aware of that and preach the gospel and know that we all to struggle with sin, but that if we confess our sins, he will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The California decision, though wrong and bad for society in many ways, doesn’t change that. Though, as you said in other posts, separation of church and state seems only to apply to the conservative or “evangelical” (whatever that means – but that’s a discussion for another day) viewpoints.
August 12, 2010 at 6:25 pm
[...] Posted by David Fischler under Law, Sexual Issues Leave a Comment As I previously predicted, Judge Vaughn Walker has refused to grant an injunction to proponents of Proposition 8 that would [...]