San Francisco Chronicle Prop. 8: Judge Walker's bias will be overruled
Maggie Gallagher_._ (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/EDEO1EOV7G.DTL&tsp=1#license-/c/a/2010/08/04/EDEO1EOV7G.DTL) Wednesday, August 4, 2010 Despite the media hoopla, this is not the first case in which a federal judge has imagined and ruled that our Constitution requires _same-sex marriage_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Same-sex_marriage) . A federal judge in Nebraska ruled for gay marriage in 2005 and was overturned by the _U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit) in 2006. The _Proposition 8_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/California_Proposition_8_(2008)) case on which the _Ninth Circuit_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit) 's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core _civil rights_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Civil_and_political_rights) of Californians and all Americans to vote for _marriage_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Marriage) as one man and one woman. Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority. Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the _U.S. Constitution_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/United_States_Constitution) ? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise. Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads. Judge Walker's view is truly a radical rejection of Americans' rights, our history and our institutions that will only fuel a popular rebellion now taking place against elites who are more interested in remaking American institutions than respecting them. If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square, the fruit of bigotry that should be discredited, stigmatized and repressed. Parents will find that, almost _Soviet_ (http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Soviet_Union) -style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents' views and values. Those in power will call it tolerance, they will call it pluralism, but in truth same-sex marriage is a government takeover of an institution the government did not make, cannot in justice redefine, and ought to respect and protect as essential to the common good. Judge Walker is off-base: same-sex marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil wrong. The Supreme Court and Congress will reject his biased view. Maggie Gallagher is the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
