The Flaws in Judge Walker's Prop 8 Dismissal Decision

When it comes to making laws, sociologists, psychologists, social psychologists and anthropologists now trump American citizens.
That's basically what happened last week when Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8--the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on "antiquated and discredited notions of gender." And that arguments against gay marriage are "nothing more than tautologies."

And: "Proposition 8...enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life." [Emphasis added.]

The "evidence" is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men's and women's "roles" were defined by their "gender." Liberals would have us believe that this is more "settled science," just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Read more in the Chicago Daily Observer

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Took about a week.

    I basically classify this, as I have before, as the dogma of the homosexual marriage movement. This isn't like sociological research definitely proving that "separate but equal" wasn't equal. Also, unlike the Arizona case, it appears that the audience to which this judge was writing was not the Supreme Court, but ideologues.

    However, despite the Tribune Editorial Board saying there is a middle ground, legally there isn't. If the U.S. Supreme Court is going to affirm this, that means that it has to say that there is a Fourteenth Amendment right to a homosexual marriage, applicable uniformly throughout the United States. It would also have to go against the prevailing law that reasonable distinctions are not discrimination for purposes of the 14th Amendment. Such a decision would also have to strike down, for instance, the ban on homosexual marriage or civil unions in Ohio. A middle ground is not presented in the California case.

    Given, for instance, the furor over the "penumbra" of the 4th amendment resulting in striking down bans on contraceptives leading to Doe v. Wade, I doubt that the current Supreme Court would go that far. I know that four Justices won't, and doubt that they would have problems finding a fifth. However, that's where the betting odds lie.

  • Yes, how dare "social scientists" presume to know more about social science than the public (most of whom know the names of the Seven Dwarfs but not the name of their own senator)! How dare a surgeon claim to know more about medicine than the old woman down the street!

    Thing is, Dennis, people who claim that marriage has been one specific thing "for thousands of years" are already demonstrating their ignorance of social science. Also, a judge must decide a case based on the presented evidence, and all that Judge Walker got on the pro-Proposition 8 side was indeed myth. Also religious superstition, meaningless generalizations, and moral standards which heterosexuals themselves don't live up to. And that from only two witnesses.

    Reality is not a matter of what people want to believe, even if they constitute a majority; majorities have been known to be wrong.

  • In reply to IronmanCarmichael:

    Game Point.

  • In reply to IronmanCarmichael:

    Sure, just like all the expert economists and educated bankers said that subprime loans were a great way of expanding homeownership. Sometimes the "experts" get it wrong. Also, we leave lawmaking to the legislatures who are supposed to represent the people. We don't outsource them to "experts" in each field.

  • In reply to IronmanCarmichael:

    Again we have a thief in a black robe stealing what the will of the people voted.That was just "marriage was between a man and a woman".No one said anything other than that BUT again when the minority doesn't like what the majotity voted we go running for judicial change.Throw out that social justice bulls#*t life is not fair. Then lets legislate chilhood cancers.Can not be done.There a many ways for whoever whats to pledge themselves to another and don't tell me about the legal stuff either.If you want to get into a squabble there are plenty of problems on all sides of ALL relationships.

  • In reply to IronmanCarmichael:

    Just because the will of the people vote on something doesn't mean it is legal. So if the will of the people decide we should ban gans, does that mean it should be the law of the land despite what is written in the Constitution?

    Those in favor of Prop 8 have yet to present any argument of why same sex marriages should not be allowed that does not involve religion. Marriage is not just a religious concept. People get married outside of a church all the time.

    If Prop 8 was allowed to stand, who knows where this would lead to. Can the majority then ban interracial marriages and interfaith marriages because they find these offensive and immoral?

    If the majority wanted to ban divorce, would the religious right and conservatives be ok with that or would they be the first to complain they have a right to a divorce?

    If the USSC says gays do not have a right to marry, I bet we will see more and more people putting petitions on the ballot to regulate bad behavior.

  • In reply to IronmanCarmichael:

    I agree with them, it is based on antiquated notions of gender, also based on antiquated religion! Oh just let them get married! Move on to the next issue.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: