Who Made the More Rational Decision, Seven Million California Voters or Judge Vaughn Walker?

Who Made the More Rational Decision, Seven Million California Voters or Judge Vaughn Walker?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
J. Michael Sharman
 
            On November 4, 2008, Californians voted on "Proposition 8" to decide whether to add new language to their state constitution. In its entirety, Proposition 8 said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[i]
Out of a total of 13,743,177 votes, 7,001,084 Californians voted for the constitutional amendment which passed 52.24% to 47.76%.[ii]
The California State Supreme Court upheld the validity of that state constitutional amendment in a 185 page opinion issued on May 26, 2009 in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009).[iii]
That same day, a new challenge to Proposition 8 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The chief judge of that federal district is Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
After Judge Walker assigned the case to himself, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote an Op-Ed piece titled, "Gay judge has proven record of impartiality", which stated, "He is gay, which changes neither his legal history nor his fitness for this assignment."[iv]
The federal case is called Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al and on August 4, 2010 Judge Walker struck down Proposition 8 in a 138 page ruling[v], which held, "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant,"[vi] and concluded that there is no rational basis to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
The actual language of Judge Walker's ruling has not been publicized to any real degree, yet because changing the essential ground rules and legal boundaries for marriage changes the basic building block of our society, it is arguably the most important legal opinion in history.
In his own words, here are Judge Walker's essential conclusions:
·        Page 123 The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual's choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its "ancient lineage."
·        Page 124 The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state's interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
·        Page 125 The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage… Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change.
·        Page 126 Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents' purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.
·        Page 129 The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households.
·        Page 130 [R]ather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.
·        Page 135 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.
 
After reading that opinion, what do you think? Who do you believe made the more rational decision, seven million California voters or Judge Vaughn Walker?
 
 
 
 


[i] Kristin M. Perry et al., Plaintiffs, City And County Of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et al, 3:09-cv-02292 VRW (USDC, NDCal., Aug 4, 2010) p. 1,
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

[iii] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S168047.PDF

[iv] "Gay judge has proven record of impartiality" San Francisco Chronicle, February 9, 2010  http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-09/opinion/17872020_1_anti-gay-san-francisco-gay-olympic-games viewed August 9, 2010

[v] Kristin M. Perry et al., Plaintiffs, City And County Of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et al, 3:09-cv-02292 VRW (USDC, NDCal., Aug 4, 2010)
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

[vi] Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al, at 116.

Support Our Broadcast Network

We're a 100% Listener Supported Network

3 Simple Ways to Support WVW Foundation

Credit Card
100% Tax-Deductable
Paypal
100% Tax-Deductable

Make Monthly Donations

 

-or-

A One-Time Donation

 
Mail or Phone
100% Tax-Deductable
  • Mail In Your Donation

    Worldview Weekend Foundation
    PO BOX 1690
    Collierville, TN, 38027 USA

  • Donate by Phone

    901-825-0652

WorldviewFinancialTV.com Banner