The World According to Judge Walker
Rich Lowry has an excellent column on the audacity of Judge Walker's decision in the Prop 8 case. He looks at the arbitrariness of some of the judges findings of "fact":
In his decision, the judge issued 80 “findings of fact.” All said findings and all said facts happen to support his belief that Proposition 8 was so errant that a bolt of lightning should have struck it from the ballot. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Judge Walker is right. In that case, he and like-minded people should come up with, say, Proposition 9 overturning the ban and persuade 50.1 percent of Californians to support it. How difficult can that be given that, per Judge Walker, every single fact is on their side?
But convincing the voters to change their minds would require some patience and respect for people’s moral sensibilities, both of which are in short supply among supporters of gay marriage. It’s far easier to convince one judge who doesn’t truly need convincing to mint a new constitutional right to gay marriage. The cost of this exercise is the outrageous high-handedness that it entails and that pervades Judge Walker’s decision.
He concludes that Californians had no rational basis to vote for Proposition 8. One wonders how he stands living among such a sea of bigotry. As self-appointed arbiter of what’s good and right about marriage, child-rearing, and gender roles, Judge Walker brooks no dissent. It’s “beyond debate” that gay marriage “has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on marriage.” It is “beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
This is preposterous. It's not just that the social science on which he relied to assert these opinions are biased by a politically correct academy and supporting institutions. With a background in economics, I think I can safely state that the application of "science" is generous in most social science fields. These things haven't even been studied that well. To discount the defendants appeal to logic and history as "irrational" while holding up studies that probably have an n=77 as proof of anything is just not serious.
But it's finding of fact #77 that intrigues me the most. There, Walker asserted that traditional religious views were harmful to gays and lesbians. I'm trying to wrap my head around what this ruling, if upheld, could mean for traditional religious adherents in the public square. If belief in traditional morality is viewed as equivalent to racism, how will a traditional Christian fare in academia? Consider how the media treat traditional religious adherents now. How will that change if their disdain for religious views has the backing of a Supreme Court decision? How will religious children fare in public schools?
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
Mollie, this goes to why I have always been uneasy about the attempt establish gay marriage as a civil right.
I am in favor of gays being able to form legal unions that have the same legal status with the state as marriage. I would not even mind calling that marriage, were I not deeply suspicious of the totalitarian impulses of those in the vanguard of this movement. Does anyone doubt that these people would use the legal status of gay marriage to bludgeon religious denominations who decline to bless alternative unions? Just look at how they treat the Boy Scouts, their post-election thuggery against churches who supported Proposition 8, and their use of state "human rights" tribunals to harass Christians who won't provide wedding services to gay couples. And now Judge Walker tops it off by defining religious beliefs as prima facie bigoted.
I will vote for any pro-gay-marriage proposition that includes language restricting its scope to state sanction only, and which provides an ironclad legal guarantee that anyone may decline to officiate at any marriage ceremony for reasons of conscience or religious belief. Let's call their bluff: that's exactly what it is.
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
But there is little threat regarding officiating at a religious ceremony. It's the photographer at the wedding ceremony whose rights are being threatened. If she declines to photograph a marriage ceremony -- as the case in New Mexico -- she could be brought up on human rights charges.
Or its the teacher at a public university who is dismissed for hate speech if he admits he holds the Catholic position on homosexual activity.
It's the children who will be taught that the state officially finds their religious views harmful.
How we decide marriage law is as important as what we decide should happen with marriage law.
May '10
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
What I don't get is how these findings are relevant to the amendment under review. There is nothing in Prop 8 that prevents gays from forming couples, recognized by the state, and from raising children. That's all happening right now.
The only point in question is whether the state can use different names to distinguish between same-sex and different sex unions. Issues like gay adoptions, survivor benefits and such have been debated and settled before now. They are not threatened. What remains in discussion if the separate classification for "traditional" marriages.
I honestly think the judge is preparing for to run for office, because most of this sounds like political campaigning.
May '10
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
You really don't think these people won't go after ministers, priests, rabbis, and their affiliated religious institutions? (Imams will get a pass.) They have already gone after Catholic hospitals and health care workers. (Wasn't it Martha Coakley who said, "Maybe Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms"?) These people hate traditional religion and religious beliefs.
And yup, I was thinking of the New Mexico photographer when I spoke of "wedding services." I'm a photographer part time, and I would happily take pictures at a same-sex couple's wedding. But I don't think my colleagues should be harassed or driven out of business because they follow their conscience when deciding which bookings to accept.
For me, this is purely a liberty issue.
May '10
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
Come on people. You can't go on about how rights to adopt etc are not threatened by this and then spin some fantastic tale of rabbis and ministers being hounded. What about the state's obligation to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. The issue is the status granted by the government being unequal. So get the state out of the marriage business -- don't use the tax code to encourage a certain type of marriage over another and there is no issue.
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
Trace,
That's long been my position. At some point, however, we have to recognize that it's an unreasonable position in that it will never happen.
So we have to deal with the reality that even though the institution of marriage predates government, our government is getting involved heavily in it, redefining it, and threatening people who disagree. That's the reality and however much my libertarian sensibilities can say "See, I told you the government should have gotten out of this business!" it doesn't matter.
May '10
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
And, from what I've seen in the decision, Judge Walker does not make a reasoned case that the status is unequal. He proclaims it is. He says that its unequal nature is self-evident. But he does not prove it is and therein lies the elephantine problem.
I, for one, do not believe the status is unequal. You will have a very difficult time demonstrating how changing a rule that is unambiguous in its definition and application to one that involves a healthy dose of subjectivity does anything but leave it open to further redefinition on exactly the same subjective ground.
In other words, "But I really want to" is not a basis to change the definition of marriage any more than it's a basis to change any other law.
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
Well, I clicked over here to the comments section, ready to state my thinking--only to discover that Daniel Frank had stated it for me, and stated it beautifully.
Jul '10
Re: The World According to Judge Walker
Well, that gets to the heart of the dispute, doesn't it? Some of us believe there aren't "types" of marriage; there's Marriage. Period. People can make whatever contractual arrangements they like regarding inheritance, power of attorney, insurance, etc. But why must they be given the right to call such arrangements "marriage"?
Why must we accept, within the space of a few short years, the total inversion, if not the sweeping away, of an institution that has served us so well for so long? Do we really believe that an act like this won't have grievous consequences for our culture? Have we entirely lost our will to defend any verities and are now content to see them dissolved and washed away by the relentless tide of modernity?
[Peter, I'm afraid I went a bit Sowell-esque on you there. So much for bucking up…]