The Whims Of Those Warming The Bench

by guest blogger Andrew Roman
_________________________

Judge Jeffery White, Bush appointee

The man's name is Jeffery White. He is a native New Yorker who, since 2002, sits as a District Court Judge in San Francisco. He was appointed by that heathen - that steward of all this is implacable and soulless - George W. Bush.

Perhaps our left-leaning brethren ought to reconsider their animus for our forty-third President. Judge White is proving to be quite a friend to them.

Seven years ago, for example, the Bush appointee ruled that it was perfectly suitable for groups to sue the federal government because of its financial backing of overseas projects that contributed to global warming  - the first judge ever to give the go-ahead to greenies to sue the feds over smokestacks and exhaling. (The groups included “Friends of the Earth” and “Greenpeace”).

On Wednesday of last week, Judge White, in a forty-three page ruling, said the Defense Of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton - the law that says the federal government will only recognize marriage as the union between one man and one woman - is flat out unconstitutional.

Period.

Maybe a "thank you" card to Mr. Bush is in order.

Just as Judge Joseph Tauro did in Massachusetts almost two years ago, Judge White has taken it upon himself - and that's the key word here: himself - to decide that the issue is, in fact, a federal matter. Judge White has magically - miraculously - sifted through Lord knows how many stubborn penumbras to discover a constitutional basis on which to overrule the Defense Of Marriage Act.

Hallelujah. Such skill.

And just like that, the matter of same-sex marriage, thanks to the opinion of one man in a fiercely liberal district - and that, too, is a key word: opinion - has officially been remodeled (if it hadn’t been already) from an issue to be decided by the people to one that will now be tended to by judges.

Quite a strategy. A hell of a plan.

What truly stinks about this entire affair is the obscene and ever-growing arrogance of powerful people who believe they know what is right for the whole of society based on their own agendas, regardless of the law or the will of the people. (I know this is a charge regularly hoisted upon conservatives, but definitionally, those of us on the right seek less government involvement, not more. It is sweet irony how self-professed libertarians like Ron Paul are in favor of same-sex marriage when it would only increase the power and entanglement of government in our lives?).

Take what happened in New Jersey recently as an example.

Two Thursdays ago, the state assembly there passed a bill, by a vote of 42-33, to legalize same-sex marriage - a measure that was ultimately vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver said the body was doing "what citizens sent us here to do: to deliberate, the use the legislative process to represent the interests of all New Jerseyans."

If a more dishonest statement exists, I've not unearthed it.

Whose "interests" exactly are being represented? As defined by whom?

State Senator Kip Bateman says the legality of same-sex marriage in New Jersey should be put on the ballot for the people to decide - a perfectly reasonable notion - but Senate President Steve Sweeney says he won't let that happen.

Read that again: He won't let that happen.

In other words, he won't permit the people of New Jersey to be heard on the matter, rendering Oliver's assertion that they have been sent to Trenton to represent the interests of the people a lie, by definition.

And how do they justify this? How can Dems so casually flip off the people they were sent to the state capitol to represent?

By incorrectly pushing same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. Because they frame it as such, the citizenry should not – and cannot - be involved in deciding the matter.

Welcome to the modern liberal mind.

Convenient, yes?

Acknowledging the very real emotionality surrounding the issue, there is simply no sound argument for same-sex marriage as a matter of civil rights. Equating the redefinition of marriage with the struggles of American blacks during the 20^th Century may pass as deep intellectual fodder in campus dorm rooms and Chomsky discussion groups, but there isn't any meat on that bone. It's like saying natural gas and bananas are identical because they both come from the earth.

To begin with, blacks did not have the option of concealing their “blackness.” In many areas, disgusting injustices against blacks were abhorrently conspicuous and institutionalized. "Whites Only" signs really did exist in plain sight. Economic disparity, housing discrimination and the inability to access the same public facilities as whites was the norm. The word “oppression” accurately depicts the black experience during the era of Jim Crow.

Not so for gays. Not to that degree.

Genuine inequalities in employment opportunities, income and housing were, at best, marginal issues for homosexuals in America.

Gay liberation began as a movement intended to, in essence, “legalize” homosexual behavior as well as protect openly gay institutions from harassment and varying forms of state injustice – which did exist, but never to the levels incurred by blacks. It eventually evolved into an “equality” campaign, fashioned after the civil rights movement - one that ultimately forced the acceptance of homosexuality on heterosexual America while, ironically, demanding that the public at large stay out of their bedrooms and shut up about it. The golden nugget of the movement would eventually become the actual redefinition of the millennia-old institution of marriage.

Equality, indeed.

Ask yourself: Is today’s inability for gays to marry in most states even on the same planet as the injustices suffered by blacks during Jim Crow?

In his ruling Wednesday, Judge White wrote:

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

But isn't law based on a moral code? Laws against rape? Theft? Murder? If those aren't moral positions, then what are they?

And if Judge White is to be taken at his word - that the moral beliefs of a majority cannot provide justification for legislation - does he mean to say that the moral beliefs of the minority should do so instead? And if not, then what is he talking about? How, then, are such decisions made in a representative republic? Through the opinion of one judge whose personal agenda is to normalize homosexuality?

Regardless of one's position on the matter, this flies beyond the issue of same-sex marriage. This is really about judicial tyranny, as talk show host and author Mark Levin characterizes it. On his radio show last Wednesday, Levin said:

"The courts have taken over the issue of same-sex marriage just like they took over the issue of abortion. Now what do you think is going to happen? Do you think the courts are taking over in order to return it to people in the states? No. They're taking over this issue in order to impose their will on you and me and everybody else.
...
When this single federal judge uses his authority this way to give what is, in essence, a political speech, with zero precedent and zero constitutional basis, he's doing from the bench something that is very very troubling, and it happens all the time, I'm afraid to say - using the power of the law to impose his personal beliefs."

Incidentally, the fact that Judge White was appointed by a Republican does not take the activist judge argument off the table for conservatives. This is not a “gotcha” moment. The “unconstitutionality” of the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t suddenly obvious because a Republican appointee said so.

Nice try, libs.

It doesn’t matter who appointed Judge White to the federal bench.

An activist judge is an activist judge, regardless of who brought him (or her) to the dance.

Same-sex marriage aside, this kind of power grab from the bench  – becoming all too common - ought to both scare and disgust us - all of us.


-

Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Part Two

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

First, I sincerely apologize for not posting my follow up to last Thursday's blog entry "Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?" as I promised I would. Life, as is often the case with me, got in the way of my best laid plans.

My original intention was to expand on the false premise regularly asserted by those on the left that to be against same-sex marriage is to hate homosexuals. I actually had something (almost) ready to go for Friday afternoon when I decided to take a slightly different route to the same ultimate destination.

Why?

Because since Thursday's post, several regular liberal readers of my old blog (redirected over here to Proof Positive) have e-mailed me at my old e-mail address to take issue with my assertions.

(For future reference, please post your responses here for everyone to see).

Subsequently, my inbox has been egged with comments of tolerance, civility and gentility -  a leftist specialty.

Clearly, I struck a chord with some.

From "rightwing scumbag" to "Nazi" to just plain "evil" – including one somewhat convoluted wish for my death – my e-mail inbox was as colorful as it has been in some time (A veritable rainbow of colors, you might say).

Some of the sweet nothings I scored included "leech," "hater" and "closet homo."

All infinitely clever. (Liberals are angry when they're beautiful).

One blogger, however, called Alan, was a tad more mannerly and politic.

As a means to an end, I will address him directly (but you’re all invited to “listen.”)

Hopefully, he will post any and all responses here at Proof Positive.

Alan wrote:

Many - perhaps most people - who oppose gay marriage actually do hate gays. And some of these people deny it, and rely upon a more palatably “respect for traditional marriage” argument to mask their prejudice.

Alan, I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. The vast majority of people who support retaining the traditional definition of marriage do not hate gays. What you are saying is simply not true. It is a myth propagated by those who wish to push the radical same-sex marriage agenda and falsely portray traditionalists as callous and unforgiving gay bashers. Indeed, I can hate the attempt to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage – and I do - but I do not hate those who are gay, nor do most of us on the traditional side of the aisle.

Sorry, but I simply won't - or don't - hate homosexuals.

Alan wrote:

The argument you have made about gay people being able to marry just like other people is neither logically nor constitutionally sound - it has been rejected by almost all courts and learned jurists in other contexts and in this one. Further, not only is it incorrect, it is just insensitive. It comes across as cruel and degrading, as does the implicit comparison of our relationships to bestiality and incest.

Alan, I defend the logic of my argument. The fact is, any man can marry any woman. It is in this point that the issue of "equality" truly lies – not in the desire to attain something that exists outside the millennia-old accepted parameters of the institution. That radical judges have, in recent years, pushed their own agendas, in direct contradiction to the will and consent of the people, does not necessarily make a decision constitutionally sound. Matters of public policy are always best left to the people, not bench legislators.

A blogger at Townhall.com who calls himself Ken The Playful Walrus articulates the point very well:

Under the principle of equal access/protection, California law prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver’s license can’t be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Is sensitivity to be measured by how much one concedes to the requests and desires of given population groups? Is it not possible to be sensitive and sincerely empathetic to the desires of homosexuals on a personal level while wanting to maintain the traditional definition of marriage on a macro level? These are not mutually exclusive positions.

I can, for instance, empathize with the hurt and anger my daughter feels for not being allowed to go on a ski trip with the rest of her track team, but I can still stand by my position and forbid her to go for whatever reasons I may have had.

You also took offense to my inquiry about incest and beastiality, but you miss my larger point.

The question really is … from where do you derive your values in defining what constitutes a marriage? Why is incestial marriage off limits if same-sex marriage is to be allowed? Why is your line in the sand more correct than mine? What criterion do you use to define acceptability? From yourself? From a friend? To be consistent, you would have to agree that the institution of marriage is to be open to any combination of consenting parties (inasmuch as an animal could "consent"), otherwise the guidelines are simply "The Desires of Alan" at the moment. If you do support same-sex marriage, but do not accept sibling-marriage or marriage between men and sheep, for example, what makes your bigotry and biases valid, while mine are not?

I know where my values come from. What about yours?

Alan wrote:

It is a legitimate argument that marriage should be preserved because of the importance of gender roles in parenting. It’s just not a very good one. Why? It doesn’t reflect the reality of what marriage means in current society, it doesn’t reflect the reality of modern families and it doesn’t meaningfully weigh the benefits of granting the benefiial state of marriage to same-sex couples against the costs to society of making a change.

Can that be denied?

And if so, on what grounds?

That doesn’t mean that gays cannot be good parents. That isn’t the point.

But to deny it or diminish the immeasurable importance of having children raised by one father and one mother is to deny reality. At the risk of peddling bumpersticker fodder, boys need men to learn how to become men. Girls need women to learn how to become women. The sexes, oddly enough, complement each other. They were created that way - and having both in the role of shaping the lives of children is the imperative.

Alan wrote:

Gay marriage is an answer to the issue of how society should treat the meaningful loving romantic relationships of gay people. Civil Unions is another answer. Acting as if they don’t exist under the law - failing to protect the parties thereto and the children thereof - is a third answer. But I posit that anyone who believes the third answer is the right answer cannot legitimately deny animus toward gays. If marriage is not your answer, what is? Civil Unions? Something else? Perhaps you could address this issue directly.

If the people (of any given state) were to vote for the state endorsement of same-sex marriage, as distasteful and disappointing as it would be, I would abide by it and accept it. Religious arguments set aside, this issue is about the will of the people. It is up to those who wish the definition to be reconstructed to sell their arguments to the American people, not unlike the women of the suffrage movement did over a century ago.

Whether they could or not is an entirely different issue.

Ken The Playful Walrus makes these five points:

1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.

2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.

3. The people of California have only consented to issue marriage licenses to bride-groom couples, as reaffirmed in their voting Yes on Proposition 22 in 2000.

4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.(2)

5. Since there is no right to a state-issued marriage license, the California Supreme Court erred when ordering the people to issue marriage licenses even though no bride or no groom would be involved.

To want to defend the traditional definition of marriage is not hateful nor is it illogical. And it certainly isn't cruel. Locking up homosexuals for being gay, for example, would be cruel. Sending sex police barging into the homes of suspected gays to keep homosexual acts from taking place would be cruel. Having the state declare officially that homosexuality is to be publicly denounced and gays spat upon is cruel. Certainly, the way homosexuals are treated in countries like Iran and Afghanistan constitute genuine cruelty to a grotesque degree. The desire by people to keep marriage as it has always been – that is, the union of one man and one woman – is not cruel.

Alan, I know of no one who wishes to "act" like homosexuals don't exist under the law. I invite you to cite any legitimate examples of conservative leaders or proponents of traditional marriage (outside of an infinitesimal fringe of wackos) who say that homosexuals should not be allowed to have any rights at all. The overwhelming vast majority have no objection whatsoever to making sure gays are afforded the same legal protections that married couples are. In fact, civil union status, one could argue, should be afforded exclusively to homosexuals. I have no problem with that. Other legal arrangements – like, for instance, between siblings or long-time best friends – can also be arranged through the state. Legal arrangements of any kind should be allowable under the laws of each state. If they are not, then that is the fight to take up.

The bottom line is … government should be neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage. It should not condone it nor condemn it. It should remain silent on the issue. However, to promote traditional marriage is not only in the best interest of society, it is, quite literally, the very lifeline of society, and has been for all of human history.

I appreciate your e-mail very much. With every bit of respect I can muster, thank you for your comments, Alan. I sincerely appreciate them and wish you well.

Next time, post them here!

-

Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?

More powerful than seven million, Judge Vaughn Walker

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Anyone who was surprised that the will of the people of California was dismissed yesterday afternoon by an activist judge, please stand on your head.

Anyone who was shocked that an issue of public policy - a matter rightfully assigned to the people - was tossed out the window by a radical jurist, please grab your medication and return to the land of the thinking.

It should have astonished no one that Proposition 8 - the measure voted on by the people of California in 2008 to keep the millennia-old definition of marriage in tact - was declared unconstitutional by a leftist judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

(Walker did, however, issue a stay on the order while an appeal is pursued.)

See how easily the will of seven million Americans can be tossed aside like so much pocket lint?

Almost immediately after the ruling, I received an e-mail from a long-time liberal acquaintance - let's call him Emotion Man -  who wrote:

"Not a good day for America's haters, is it?"

Clever ...

... because all of us who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage must be homosexual haters.

There's a scene in the Godfather Part II, spoken by Michael Corleone in front of the Senate Committee, where he is reading from a prepared statement:

"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a criminal."

(Of course, he was a criminal, but that's beside the point).

This line keeps popping into my head every time I am accused of being a hater of homosexuals because of my position on same-sex marriage.

Emotion Man sent me an e-mail in response to a piece I posted back during the Anti-Proposition 8 rallies a couple of years ago.

He wrote:

"Whether you're getting your values from the Bible or not, there's no valid reason to be against gay marriage unless you hate or are afraid of gays."

I immediately saw myself sitting at that table with Michael Corleone, exasperated with the Senate Committee:

"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a gay hater."

(Of course, I am not, and that is the point).

I neither hate gays, nor do I fear them. Such thoughts don't even cross my mind.

I am, however, loath to use the term “gay marriage.” In context of the argument to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage, it is incorrect. It's a trap. The appropriate term is “same-sex” marriage. The fact that the former is often employed in place of the latter is no accident. It is as much a strategic move as it is one of ignorance. That's because same-sex marriage activists recognize how easily the traditional view can be made to sound like a position of hate and intolerance. Thus, the perfunctory conclusion one can draw about someone being against “gay marriage” is that he is against "gay people."

Dozens of likewise examples exist ...

-I have contempt for the policy of affirmative action, but because its purpose is to “level the playing field” for minorities, I must obviously be anti-minority.

-I am against most unions, but because their purpose is to make sure that fair working conditions exist for employees, I am clearly anti-employee.

Irrelevant is whether or not initiatives like affirmative action, or organizations like the labor unions, are actually doing any good or delivering on their original designed purposes.

It doesn't matter. On the Left, compassion is measured by intent, not results.

My liberal friend went on to say:

This is an issue of equal rights, and it can hardly be denied. Your thinking is not only outdated, it is dangerous. Because you and your right wing bretheren continue to deny us the right to marry, we will never be looked upon as equals.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage caterwaul about the inherent inequalities in being denied the opportunity to marry. But by definition, there is no issue of inequality in the debate, nor is there a denial of rights. Gay people can, in fact, marry. That they wish to marry people of the same sex is a separate issue and altogether inapposite to the so-called "equality of rights" argument.

No one can marry whomever they want unless it fits the very specific guideline of what marriage is - that is, the union of one man and one woman.

To illustrate the point, let's say, for example, we have a young lady named Laura who wishes to be married someday, and there are three young men courting her - one white, one black and one oriental.

And let's say, eventually, Laura falls in love with the black man and decides she wants to marry him.

If that black man is denied the opportunity by the state to marry the girl because of his skin color, then a clear-cut example of a denial of equal rights exists. (The fact that there were statutes on the books denying interracial marriage in some states at one time was an aberration. They exist no more. It should be noted that there is nothing biblically-based that prohibits interracial marriages. Additionally, there is nothing anywhere in any context in all of human history that supports or advocates marriage between members of the same sex). The equality issue, as it relates to marriage, is defined by the fact that any man - even a gay man - can marry any woman. It's not about which sex he will marry.

I repeat - no one can marry the same sex, just as no one can tie the knot with a squirrel or take the vows with a candy machine.

Remember, there are no vital distinctions between men of different races. There are, however, genuine and explicit differences that exist between the sexes - a reality that has been undermined in this society for the better part of four decades, from college campuses on through to pop culture. The predictable (and tragic) by-product has been the movement to redefine an institution that has been steadfast for thousands of years.

By propagating the idea that the marriage between two men (or two women) carries the same importance to civilization as the marriage between one man and one woman, the uniqueness of each sex is devalued, and the contrasts between them blurred.

I do not want those distinctions diluted. I celebrate and cherish the differences between men and women.

That doesn't mean that as individuals gay people are less important human beings than straight people. I would never say such a thing, nor do I believe it with even a scintilla of my being. We are all God's children.

That isn't the point.

My friend continued:

It will only be a matter of time before the old guard Bible-thumpers like yourself, hell-bent on institutional discrimination, are seen as the radical ones. Your position is indefensible.

There are a multitude of gays who do not agree with the push to redefine marriage - including the likes of Elton John, no Bible-thumper by any means. (He recently called for the abolition of religion, you may recall).

I also find the use of the word "radical" amusing, seeing as it is the millenia-old definition of marriage being challenged by a movement not even a generation old.

And just for the record ... as "radical" as this may sound, I am also opposed to humans marrying cats - and I assure you, I do not hate cats.

And if there were a movement sweeping the nation calling for the government to advocate sibling marriages, I would be just as vocal and just as adamantly opposed to it.

And if sheep could somehow speak, and a grassroots movement caught fire calling for humans to be able to lawfully wed them, I would vehemently debate them (at a barnyard of their choice) on the necessity of preserving traditional marriage.

I want only the best for all Americans. That includes homosexuals. That is as truthful a statement as I can make.

This is not an anti-gay position.

This is a pro-marriage position.

Come off it already.

(I'll have more thoughts tomorrow on this matter here on the great Proof Positive blog)