The Right Side Of The Blogosphere’s Reaction To The Prop 8 Ruling
One of the more despicable things about liberalism is the way that it has destroyed the rule of law in this country. That’s because when the laws conflict with liberalism, liberal judges have no qualms whatsoever about substituting their own judgment for the law, for the will of the people, or the decisions of legislators. In other words, justice isn’t blind in this country; it’s random. No matter how right you are, if you have a liberal judge making the ruling, ideology always trumps the law. So it was yesterday in California, when once again, yet another liberal activist judge overruled the will of the people of California on gay marriage. If you want an argument for why we need a federal marriage amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman in the Constitution, that ruling is it.
Here are some of the notable comments about the ruling from around the right side of the blogosphere — where, for the most part, bloggers were very unhappy with the ruling.
Thanks for the extra 7% turnout in November!!!
Hugs and kisses,
….This feels to me like Waterloo. This is the judicial establishment gone utterly lawless.
I don’t know if we’re a democracy if this decision stands up.
What are votes worth? Nothing, apparently. — Ace of Spades HQ
As I say, an expected ruling, given the narrowing of perspective. It is counter-intuitive to 5,000 years of human cultural understanding, but we’ve seen a lot of that, these past 40-or-so years.
My first thought: the churches—any of them who wish to remain able to practice their faith in relative freedom—will have to seriously consider getting out of the business of acting as “duly recognized” agents of the state in legalizing marriages. The alternative will be inevitable lawsuits charging “discrimination” for disallowing church weddings, a diminution of our constitutional right to free worship, and a further emptying of church coffers as settlements and fines are levied. — The Anchoress
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people of California, and the United States, have made clear in numerous ways that they have not consented to the redefinition of marriage. For the past two decades they have considered the arguments advanced by some for overturning marriage as it has been understood in our country. In state after state – 45 in all — they have chosen to reaffirm the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They have done so because they understand that establishing same-sex marriage would transform the institution into a set of private interests rather than buttress it as a multi-generational reality binding mothers, fathers and their children biologically, socially and legally.
From the beginning of this litigation we have pointed out Judge Vaughn Walker’s trail of activist rulings, from his inappropriate decision to convert a legal proceeding into a show trial, to his failure to follow legal procedure in ordering live video streaming of the trial. Fortunately, Judge Walker’s abrogation of the rule of law on the latter issue was swiftly rebuffed by the Supreme Court last January when it vacated his decision to broadcast the trial.
Judge Walker’s ruling today similarly abrogates the rule of law. — The Foundry
I find that the judge makes some good arguments for gay marriage, but doesn’t succeed in relating them to the constitution. His legal analysis is sloppy at best and dismisses the sex-difference argument for traditional marriage by flippantly referring to what he calls “discredited notions of gender” as if the assumptions about a supposed social construction of gender had been proven true when, in fact, all serious psychological, sociological studies have shown the opposite. Not to mention studies of the human brain.
He fails to cite a provision of the federal constitution which prevents states from making distinctions based on sex difference, primarily because there isn’t one. — GayPatriot
I, for one, am thankful that our Progressive Overlords, for example, Judge Walker, and Judge Bolton know what’s best for us.
If only their wisdom had prevailed in 1776. We could have kept the pound, the King, and now be enjoying rugby and cricket.
These silly Conservatives need to refrain from restraining the Progressive Golden Age right now! — The Other McCain
And this ruling does nothing more than enshrine the notion that what has always been the definition for marriage can no longer be the definition for marriage, because defining marriage as it has always been defined is discriminatory against those who wish it was defined in a way more to their liking, and in a way that changes what it is and has always been into something it never was nor ever has been. — Protein Wisdom
A federal district judge in San Francisco has decided the citizens of a state prohibiting gay marriage violates the constitution. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage,” said the judge, overturning several thousand years of history in one fell swoop. A majority of the citizens of California, the most progressive state in the union, disagree.
In fact, 32 states ban gay marriage by constitution or statute. An additional seven ban it, but have civil-union laws. The judge in San Francisco ruled yesterday that civil unions do not equate with marriage.
In fact, the judge focused on the historic cultural meaning of marriage before destroying the historic cultural meaning of marriage.
39 states have banned gay marriage.
It takes only 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.
A majority of the American public and three-quarters of the American states have been overruled by one federal judge in San Francisco.
…If a minority of political elites and liberals can impose their will and values on a majority sufficient enough to amend the constitution, it is time for the majority to respond with constitutional force. — Redstate
What a surprise that an orientationally-challenged judge should just happen to come down on the orientationally-challenged side.
…I’m just wondering who’s got next, the bigamists, the polygamists, or the animal lovers. But at the end of the day, it’s little more than one more check in the societal collapse column. This should, however, have serious implications in November as the Republican grass roots begin the push for a Constitutional Amendment in defense of marriage. — Vox Popoli