FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Freedom for Me but Not for Thee, Say Equality Opponents
Lady Liberty Bends Over Backward to Accomodate Inequality
- Over at Fox News [sic], Ted Olson silenced the states’-rights argument in favor of Prop 8 last weekend by asking Chris Wallace: “Would you like Fox’s right to a free press put up to a vote and say, well, if five states have approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?” (No answer was forthcoming.) -
Much has been said about the triumph of the odd-couple legal team, the former Bush v. Gore adversaries Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed Prop 8 in court. But of equal significance is the high-powered lawyer on the other side, Charles Cooper. He was named one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington in the same National Law Journal list that included Olson and, in his pre-Supreme Court incarnation, John Roberts. Yet, as Judge Walker made clear in his 136-page judgment, Cooper, for all his talent and efforts, couldn’t find facts to support his argument that full civil marital rights for same-sex couples would harm the institution of marriage, children or anyone else. Cooper only managed to summon two “expert” witnesses. In the judge’s determination, one undermined his credibility by giving testimony contradicting his own opinions while the other provided “evidence” rendered worthless by its lack of scientific methodology or even fundamental peer-review vetting.
Boies and Olson produced nine expert witnesses with the relevant professional and academic expertise lacking in Cooper’s duo and compiled an encyclopedic record of empirical findings that demolished the arguments for denying gay families equal rights under the law. In the understatement of The Economist, that record “now seems a high hurdle” for the Supreme Court to overturn. That could still happen, of course, and already there are signs of a campaign from the right to besmirch the likely swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. Though Kennedy was a Ronald Reagan appointee who wrote much of the unsigned decision in Bush v. Gore, that did not prevent him from being called “the most dangerous man in America” by the family-values czar James Dobson after Kennedy wrote a majority opinion decriminalizing gay sex in 2003.
There has already been an attempt to discredit Walker, who has never publicly discussed his sexual orientation but has been widely reported to be gay. The notion that a judge’s sexuality, gay or not, might disqualify him from ruling on marriage is as absurd as saying Clarence Thomas can’t rule on cases involving African-Americans. By this standard, the only qualified judge to rule on marital rights would be a eunuch. No less ridiculous has been the attempt to dismiss Walker as a liberal “activist judge.” Walker was another Reagan nominee to the federal bench, recommended by his attorney general, Edwin Meese (an opponent of same-sex marriage and, now, of Walker), in a December 1987 memo residing at the Reagan library. It took nearly two years and a renomination by the first President George Bush for Walker to gain Senate approval over opposition from Teddy Kennedy, the N.A.A.C.P., La Raza, the National Organization for Women and the many gay groups who deemed his record in private practice too conservative.
The attacks on Walker have fizzled fast. With rare exceptions from the hysterical fringe — Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich — most political leaders have either remained silent about the Prop 8 decision (the Republican National Committee) or punted (the Obama White House). Over at Fox News, Ted Olson silenced the states’-rights argument in favor of Prop 8 last weekend by asking Chris Wallace: “Would you like Fox’s right to a free press put up to a vote and say, well, if five states have approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?” (No answer was forthcoming.)
Most of those who do argue for denying marriage equality to gay couples are now careful to say that they really, really like gay people. This, like the states’-rights argument, is a replay of the battle over black civil rights. Eric Foner, the pre-eminent historian of Reconstruction, recalled last week via e-mail how Strom Thurmond would argue in the early 1960s “that segregation benefited blacks and whites and had nothing to do with racism” — as if inequality were O.K. as long as segregationists pushing separate-but-equal “compromises” claimed their motives were pure.
Still another recurrent argument from the Thurmond era has it that no judge should overrule the voters, who voted 52 to 48 percent in California for Prop 8 in 2008. But as Olson also told Chris Wallace, “We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote.” It’s far from certain in any event that a majority of California voters approve of Prop 8 now. A Field poll released two weeks before Walker’s ruling found that Californians approved of same-sex marital rights by 51 to 42 percent. Last week a CNN survey for the first time found that a majority of Americans (52 percent) believed “gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married.”
None of this means that full equality for gay Americans is a done deal. Even if it were, that would be scant consolation to the latest minority groups to enter the pantheon of American scapegoats, Hispanic immigrants and Muslims. We are still a young, imperfect, unfinished country. As a young black man working as a nurse in a 1980s AIDS clinic memorably says in Tony Kushner’s epic drama “Angels in America”: “The white cracker who wrote the national anthem knew what he was doing. He set the word ‘free’ to a note so high nobody can reach it.”
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=45007
Posted by Yanira Farray on Aug 15 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Corruption, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Judicial activist Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones. It took 136 pages for Walker, with the help of a few hand picked intellectuals, to arrogantly portray the majority and their representatives in this country as too ignorant to have any part in defining marriage. UNBELIVEABLE! Walker and gay activists want to plant in my mind gay marriage is equal to things like the abolition of slavery, or women overcoming patriarchy! Well that just gives the gay side a false sense of credibility by exploiting those past struggles. Furthermore, I am insulted by your racist attitude that claims I don’t know any better. Who are you narcissist Judge Walker to label my thoughts as irrational? You claim anyone who opposes your view is a bigot or homophobe! I guess you think that helps you and the activists justify your actions, but it’s clearly not reality. Your reasoning? It’s gays right because you say it is!! Who are you to marginalize opponents to your point of view? Oh I see gay ideas of what should be redefined are more important then everyone else’s. Combining homosexual life styles to redefine the importance of man and woman in child-rearing and the value of traditional marriage is not within the judiciaries subject matter jurisdiction, that’s why we had such a one sided 136 page trial, and the public deserves better. I guess I am supposed to cave and accept redefining marriage and morality. I am supposed to shut up and openly accept the stage set for an anything goes society and not see the legal, cultural, and political consequences to follow this precedent. After marriage is conquered, the activists wont’ shut up, because marriage is just the first step in the far-reaching agenda to redefine.
Like many Americans, I am completely disinterested in other “adults” sexual behavior. If two people of the same sex want to love each other I DON’T CARE! I would venture to say its not the average Joe blow homosexual that is obsessed with redefining marriage…it’s the activist extremists! Homosexuality cannot be merged with the traditionally recognized institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Same sex relationships could be called whatever they want. Then let both have equal benefits. DONE. Minimal discrimination to either side!
To communicate or debate, one has to decide what their issue is with prop 8, gay marriage or judicial activism?. My issue has nothing to do whether or not I am in favor or against gay marriage.
According to judge walker the current “credible” motivation for banning gays and lesbians from marrying is a desire to mark them as second-class citizens. Well I say, then why be married? Why try to change the ancient traditional foundation that exists? Do they really think a piece of paper will change anything? Well from experience I found that kind of ownership of another person just makes life more complicated. Well as a divorced agnostic, its easy for me to feel that way emotionally! Also, you never herd me complain with my choice to become a minority as a single dad back in the 1990s with custody of my kids. I was discriminated across the board compared to single moms, so I have some personal experience with discrimination.
Shouldn’t we all be up in arms working together over something sooooo much more important? Like decades of sloppy capitalism, and all its trickle down effects that has our country in such a terrible economic mess? We need to wake up collectively and look what’s happening to our country?…look where we are at? Shouldn’t there be hundreds of other more relevant issues to get this country up in arms? Yeah, I know I am changing the subject……Hello!
Now if the issue for you is solely gay marriage, weather for or against it, then you are talking about your own life/emotions, and regardless if this decision is in your favor or not, that blinds you. That’s what the populous does! Again, wake up and look what’s happening to our country….look where we are!
I disagree with the power abuse used to implement amendment of prop 8, because of the extort tactics employed, not because of gay marriage in itself. If they want to be as miserable as hetero couples its fine with me! Just as Obama, I do not endorse gay marriage, but have no problem with benefits. There is an issue here bigger than, beliefs, religion, homophobia, sin, or gay marriage, all of that is just the stage!! My interest here is what is going on behind this gay smokescreen? Perhaps it’s the constitution being manipulated to fit a judicial agenda? to redefine for people in the populous like themselves? Well, constitutional interpretation or reconstructing the constitution certainly can not be left to an activist judge, and should not be left to the judiciary alone. They should require input from the citizens.
Why is Obama against gay marriage? How can a president sit back and concur with Judicial inability to recognize its limitations as a political entity undermining democratic favor?.
Society cannot separate due to physical traits. It does separate based on things that society deems immoral or dangerous. If this is discrimination, which side or who defines morality? Each side has a different definition? To communicate or debate our words need to have the same meaning or were not speaking the same language and we get nowhere, for example look at the abortion debate.
How far can the supreme court break down the majority of citizens conventional ideas of morality? Where and how could they find an acceptable limit that does not discriminate against anyone’s morals? Will the Supreme court decide for society the definition of correct and moral behavior for all mindsets? If so, are we still a constitutional representative democracy? If not, and we are to “evolve” into something more modern, meaning we are beyond those old age parameters, should that be up to the Supreme court to decide?
I would say every time judicial supremacy replaces constitutional supremacy It goes against our best ideals constitutionally, that is regarding the intended understanding of the values outlined in our founding documents. We are currently living through two battles: One is between the Constitution and the judges, the other, supreme law and the judiciary. Activist judges know they have judicial immunity, so Walker knows he is immune from lawsuit and has selfishly decided to just go for it!
Judge Walker says: “the ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process”
So if it’s unconstitutional to prohibit same sex marriage…. Using that same ideology is it even more unconstitutional to force this on all of society? Now, if “moral disapproval” violates constitutional rights as Judge walker stated, then is he contradicting himself? Constitutional politics is known to, and accepted to use, persuasion to initiate change. This Judge has just used political coercion. He has personally, through the court, used the morality of rights from a minority, to displace the morality of consent with all of California. Will the supreme court follow suit?
Every time we allow judicial review to impose judicial supremacy, to replace constitutional supremacy, It goes against our best ideals constitutionally, and
we alter the constitution without public acceptance and or awareness. This supremacy is a slippery slope, presently the subject matter is insignificant compared to what it will become down the line, leading to more problems that are significant, to the point where someday we may end up a dictatorship. California has already voted twice that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and approved Prop 8. 30 states have voted the same, over 60 million Americans. Are we a constitutional representative democracy? If we no longer accept the current benchmark of our citizens individual voting preferences, it goes against our best ideals constitutionally. If I remember correctly the Constitution belongs to the people!
I project that if the supreme court (through what would have to be a narrow victory) forces this down society’s throat, with all the societal changes that would follow, for example, all children being taught that homosexuality is a healthy life choice……the complete disgust for homosexuality by the heterosexual majority in this country will not only persist, but increase, as it is a natural response for them. That could end up worse for the same-sex marriage movement , which could lead to a constitutional amendment that would eliminate same-sex marriage in all states. In the end, regardless of political pressure applied from homosexual or religious bias, the decision handed down by the highest court in the land must reflect a common sense decision, and that decision may be to avoid making a decision at all, and leave it to states!
Lets see what happens!
Jeff Chiacchieri
There are actually studies that show that gay marriage is not really that good for children. Additionally, this agenda was pushed by those that thought that it would reduce population growth. Frankly, we need to take a careful look at this entire cultural push for “gay rights.” We really don’t know if gay parenting is good for children in the short or long term. We don’t know what the impact on society might be. I think that until we know those things, that we should tread cautiously.
Look at our society right now. It is a mess. We have studies that show that children raised by an at home parent do better in school than those raised in day care. We have done the same things that the Russians did (i.e. putting women into the workforce, liberalized divorce law and reduced the strength of the familial bond) THOSE THINGS WRECKED RUSSIA. They are wrecking this country.
How long are we going to stand for this ridiculous social engineering by banksters? We need to be rebuilding our families and society will follow. Everybody’s rights need to be subordinate to building strong supportive families and producing smart well-behaved children.
MK
[...] Wine, Beer & Spirits, "Dish", Atlanta)Sunday PaperFreedom for Me but Not for Thee, Say Equality OpponentsVeterans Today Networkall 707 news [...]
Aside from the fact most people find gay men’s unique behavior reprehensible, these men conspire to their own benefit in every human institution in which they gain a foothold. They are subversive not only of morality, but of social order. To condone this group’s demands is an act of moral cowardice, or if indifferent to it, moral acedia. These men should be characterized by their particular behavior, which revolves around a sexual obsession with male defecation, sexual promiscuity beyond comprehension, and has so far resulted in the spread of horrible diseases. Society deems that behavior immoral and a threat to the family and social order. This farce of a trial makes it clear homosexuals are not simply consenting adults doing no harm behind closed doors, but intent on enshrining their practices as rights above and prior to those of society at large. The statistics show they have hundreds of times more sexual partners than normal people during their lifetime–five hundred to a thousand or more–and suffer from and transmit terrible diseases due solely to their behavior. Even in an amoral society such behavior should be prohibited as a mental disorder with grave societal costs. Allowing that there is a Constitutional right to behavior which will destroy the family and society is an act of war. Every history of homosexuality is invariably a history of child abuse. I feel sorry for the homosexuals who keep to themselves and wish them no harm, and by themselves they are politically powerless due to their small numbers. This entire episode can only be understood by looking at those who control the media and Hollywood, who are obviously the driving force behind the homosexual agenda and nearly every other subversive attempt to destroy this nation. They are engaged in what could be described as a religious war against America, and we send our children to them like the fools we are. Tolerance is not much of a virtue to begin with, but when it becomes the excuse for moral cowardice, the only question to ask is, what next?
What next?
Maybe we should round them up, and put ‘em in concentration camps as a final solution to this problem.
You a NAZI-type by chance?
There isn’t anything in what I said that implies doing anything but opposing the gay agenda, which opposition by the way, is consistent with every American value and tradition. More to your point, I said I sympathize with homosexuals provided they keep it to themselves. I take it you’re one of them, an enemy of the American people, whose weapon of choice for waging war on American soil is the degradation of everything we cherish in this country, like family, children, and community, through control of the media and Hollywood. Your comment is too clever by half and reveals you’re not half the genius you take yourself to be, jackass.
Good post Dan, Dont even bother with that kind of response. whoohoo Did ya hear the news on prop 8!
[...] Freedom for Me but Not for Thee, Say Equality OpponentsVeterans Today Networkall 1,869 news articles » [...]