Anyone that thought that an openly gay Federal judge was going to rule in favor of Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California was naïve at best. Had Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of Proposition 8, he would have done so at his peril. Because it is more than likely than not that he would have at best been shunned in the gay community and at worst might have suffered great bodily harm from the more radical elements of the gay community. For any of you wondering why the pro-Prop 8 lawyers didn't move that the judge recuse himself because of a potential conflict of interest; you probably have never experienced the wrath of a judge scorned. Many judges have huge egos and dislike being challenged. Much has also been made of the judge being a Libertarian and a Reagan appointee. But the judge is still an openly gay man in a position of high visibility ruling on a volatile issue concerning a vocal special interest group of which he is a member of. Some leftists ideologues have said the judge's sexual preference doesn't matter.
But these hypocrites are like the Liberal-Fascist ideologues that sought Justice Scalia's recusal in Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia resulting from the litigation involving the proceedings of the National Energy Policy Development Group (the “Task Force”) and its sub-groups. At issue was a duck hunting trip taken by Cheney and others, which included Justice Scalia while a case involving Cheney's energy task force was pending. The invitation to Scalia was for the sole benefit of another member of the hunting party that wanted to meet Justice Scalia whom he had long admired. Cheney invited Scalia at the last minute to join the trip. The Sierra Club and other Eco-Nazis tried to get Justice Scalia recused and only came up with a weak appearance of impropriety argument.
Julius Caesar's wife aside, shooting ducks with Dick Cheney was probably more dangerous than advantageous to Justice Scalia. Judge Walker's sexual preference is more prejudicial to the case he presided over because he stands to benefit directly from his ruling on the matter, i.e., he may want to get married some day. Rush Limbaugh said in today's broadcast that Judge Walker called marriage "homophobia codified" in his ruling. If so, that's a very troubling verbiage by Judge Walker. It's also indicative of a very personal policy preference.
* * * * *
The problem with the judge's decision is that it is based upon emotional and not upon legal and historical factors. Few societies in human history have ever recognized same sex marriage, although there is some research suggesting otherwise. But many of the examples given in one article are not the most persuasive ones that could be cited in favor of gay marriage:
The first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[Citation Omitted]
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in gay unions. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law."[Citation Omitted] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[Citation Omitted] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[Citation Omitted]
The Emperor Nero is not the best moral and spiritual example to cite in favor of gay marriage. Nor is the decadent Roman Empire an example of a progressive and stable society. The primary and traditional purpose of marriage is to legally protect women and children from irresponsible men. That its origins may have some religious connections is really not the issue. What would be the compelling interest served by gay marriage? There are seldom any children involved and most property issues can be handled by the civil contract process. It is a legal mess when there is a gay parent and a straight parent involved in a custody fight. When both parents are gay/lesbian, it is a potential legal and psychological (for the child) landmine field.
To accord a broad bundle of rights associated with marriage to a group whose major distinguishing characteristic is how and with whom they perform a sex act with is problematic. Besides, civil unions can be tailored to achieve many of the results desired by gay marriage advocates. Now if the gay marriage advocates can show that homosexuality is in their DNA then I'll be among the first conservatives to stand up for gay marriage.
As a minority person, the most irksome argument in favor of gay marriage is the civil rights comparison. First off, race or ethnicity is something that cannot be changed. And until shown otherwise, being gay or lesbian is still a sexual preference and not a biological fact. This renders the issue as primarily one of sexual relations. For example, such a preference is being sexually turned on only by blonds or as in the case of an acquaintance of mine that is sexually attracted only to petite Asian women. This is not to diminish the notion that genuine affection couldn't exist between those of the same sex. But many gay relationships, as with some heterosexual relationships, are purely sex driven transient experiences. For many, love is simply a disposition of the sex organs. Without more than just sex, there's very little to justify gay or any marriage for that matter. On a annoying final note, this decision is yet another in a long line of judicial tyrannies that ignore the will of the people, i.e., the voters of the State of California.
