Introducing the Judge Who Disenfranchised the Majority

In 2008, fifty two percent of California voters passed a constitutional amendment to define the term “marriage” as being between a man and a woman (yes, this was all over a single word…gays have full civil and interpersonal contractual rights already and can do whatever they want to in their private lives, the majority of Americans just didn’t want them to call it “marriage”).

Proposition 8 represented a step further from the first time the majority had to do this, Proposition 22, which was in the form of an act passed by the majority of Californians, that had also been struck down by the courts.

Today, August 4th, 2010, one person, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, actually declared a state constitutional amendment to be…unconstitutional. He literally ripped out a part of a state constitution and pretended the amendment process never occurred. He unilaterally disenfranchised a majority of voters.

Ladies and gentlemen, when the judiciary can overturn the will of the people, who just amended their own state constitution, and does so with impunity, Constitutional democracy has just died. It wouldn’t have mattered if Proposition 8 had passed with 99.9% approval. Judge Vaughn R. Walker has an agenda to fulfill and he will make certain it is fulfilled. Democracy, the kind where your vote is sacred, has just died.

Let’s learn a little bit about Judge Walker, shall we?

  • He’s one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay (what a surprise that he was on this case).
  • He doesn’t like harsh sentences for white-collar criminals (go figure, most elites don’t).
  • He supposedly has libertarian leanings (except, obviously for the part where the people get to have their vote respected)
  • He sided with the state in a case where parents simply wanted to teach their son their religious values despite his teacher’s pro-gay leanings.
  • He sided with the city of Oakland against two citizen city employees who exercised their First Amendment right to post fliers promoting the natural family (check your rights at the door to your workplace, “religious people”).
  • And now, he has just disenfranchised 52% of the population of California.

Anti-Prop 8 folks are reveling in their victory in most ungracious and un-statesmanlike ways.

“Somewhere there’s a right wing homophobic Google Wave user who’s having the worst day of his life.”

“BREAKING: @NewtGingrich condemns Prop 8 decision, insists it will force him to get married a fourth, fifth and sixth time.”

“The fact that there ever was a prop 8 is out of control. It’s archaic and backwards and stupid. And it’s hopefully gone”

“I wish there was a referendum about making religion illegal, or to deny rights to conservatives. That would balance the equation.” (Huffington Post Superuser leyvadaniel)

Having endured death threats in 2008 for exercising my own First Amendment rights on the subject, I have to say I’m not surprised.

Long live “tolerance”.


2 thoughts on “Introducing the Judge Who Disenfranchised the Majority

  1. first of all, i am gay.

    second, i am glad the article has pointed out how ridiculous it seems when a judge can overrule what the majority of california citizens have declared more than once. thank you for pointing that out.

    but, it is NOT just about a word. gay couples do NOT have the same rights as married, straight couples. the legal rights of gay couples are few – the same as they are for unmarried straight couples. it is a huge issue that goes far, far beyond semantics.

    and yes, some people who hated prop 8 have used vulgar words and said hateful things. that does not represent all of us. the same way that people who use vulgar and hateful things towards gay people do not represent ALL people who disagree with the gay lifestyle. i personally am sickened by those who don’t treat each other respectfully, no matter what side of the issue they are on.

    • I have gay friends, colleagues, and family members. I don’t wish any of them harm. I don’t wish to take away their free agency to have whatever relationships they will (though, as a Christian, I pray that they will choose the heterosexual path since I’ve witnessed how the risky behaviors inherent in the homosexual lifestyle have physically and spiritually maimed and killed yet others). My church, even in the midst of being singled out for violence, vandalism, and vitriol, has even openly stated on the public record that they do not wish to see anyone, even gays, discriminated against in the workplace or in the public square and that gays SHOULD have the same civil rights as straights.

      Please explain why gay couples need to redefine the definition of marriage in order to obtain the rights married couples have? Why not seek other legislative means to the same effect? It has been done successfully in Minnesota.

      Why does the dictionary have to be rewritten?

      Why do thousands of years of history and common understanding and agreement about marriage, specifically that word, need to be thrown out the window in favor of allowing anyone to “marry” someone of their same gender?

      Why do millions of federal documents using the words “husband” and “wife” need to be thrown out and republished to say “partner 1” and “partner 2”?

      Why can’t the things gays are asking for be codified into contract law and leave out the word “marriage”?

      Why can’t you call it whatever you want to in the privacy of your own relationship, but leave the rest of the world out of it?

      Why are gays so interested in forcing the collective consciences of churches to perform gay weddings at the behest of new state and federal laws saying they must do so?

      That’s how far reaching the California gay rights movement has stated _on the public record_ that they would like this to go. Almost all Christian and Jewish church doctrines biblically and specifically prohibit anyone but one man or one woman from being married by its clergy and through their respective ceremonies, yet they ALL now would stand to be SUED OUT OF EXISTENCE by the ACLU and made to PAY TAXES FOR BEING A POLITICAL ENTITY by the IRS and have injunctions issued against it for VIOLATING A SPEECH CODE imposed upon it by a special interest group and a few unelected justices.

      The simple act of teaching heterosexual marriage ideals from the Bible will get professional and lay clergy alike thrown in jail for thought crimes (and already has in Canada and even here).

      And where does “gay marriage” end? Polygamists are chomping at the bit because now that the word “marriage” has been redefined, they can now argue logically that if a man and man can marry, and a woman and woman can marry, why not a man marrying more than one woman? Or, for the bigamist set, a man already married can argue that his stealth marriage to another woman is no different than gay marriage now that it is no longer defined specifically as being “one man, one woman”. Likewise, a woman marrying more than one man. And don’t even try to deny that exists. People all over the Web have written about this from their own personal interest point of view. All you have to do is turn on Jerry Springer to hear the bigamist point of view. Just search for it and you’ll find it. NAMBLA is ecstatic that, because of this ruling, the future now appears to portend a day when grown men will be able to marry minor boys. Individuals practicing bestiality have and do express interest in this ruling because of what it means for their relationships with their animal “partners”, which even PETA says is animal brutality since the animals can’t consent.

      Why are you okay with all of this? Don’t you see what a Pandora’s Box this has opened?

      We, a clear majority, in a country that is set up to respect majority rule, who oppose the redefinition of the word “marriage” in this manner, simply want to continue to worship God in the way we believe He created us, and in the way He stated he created us, male and female, and in the way He has stated He intends us to marry, male and female, without direct interference upon our consciences by special interest groups. This whole ruling has thrown our vote to that effect out the window and effectively says, “The majority’s First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion are now erased for the benefit of this tiny minority of individuals who want something different.”

      It is a ruling of intolerance that pretends to increase tolerance, but fails miserably to achieve it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s