Heritage Foundation
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama's health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "Nothing." Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the "facts" Judge Walker found:
* Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
* The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
* The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian.
* The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.
* Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted.
How did Judge Walker arrive at these “facts�? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents "experts" said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was "unreliable" and "provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate." In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker's reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker's Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: "Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue."
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military's personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The same Elena Kagan who was simply "not sympathetic" to the claim of a petitioner that his 2nd amendment rights were violated, and was actively involved in President Clinton's gun control agenda. The same Elena Kagan who advised President Clinton that it would be a "disaster" if the full medical truth was revealed about partial-birth abortion, endangering the gruesome procedure.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs, and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: "Nothing." We'll see today if the Senate agrees.
No comments:
Post a Comment