Sign Up!
Welcome to HiddenMysteries
Saturday, September 19 2020 @ 04:46 PM CDT

The Mormon Conspiracy Defeated

Whited Sepulchers

Marriage's Fiercest Defenders


It took a gay Republican judge with libertarian leanings to issue from the bench, in a US District courthouse in San Francisco, one of the warmest testimonials to the married state since Erasmus.

Last Wednesday Vaughan R. Walker struck down California’s ban on gay marriage, prompting ecstatic rejoicing among a mostly gay crowd outside the courthouse. His ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds.

Walker ruled that a California referendum known as Proposition 8, mostly paid for by the Mormons, passed in 2008 and declaring marriage in the state was legal only when transacted between men and women, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution because it discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice, whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely.

A final judicial verdict is years away, because appeals will now wend their way slowly through the system until they reach the US Supreme Court, six of whose nine current members are Catholics.

Back in 2004 18,000 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco in the brief period before S.F. mayor Gavin Newsom’s okay to licensed same-sex marriages in his jurisdiction was overruled by the state of California. It’s unclear whether there’ll now be a huge boom in San Francisco’s gay tourist economy. Walker has yet to rule whether he’s fired such a starting pistol for renewed gay marriage or whether they’ll have to wait final resolution of the appeals.

On the progressive side there’s a torrent of applause from liberal commentators at Walker’s 136-page vitriolic assault on traditional Christian family values, as represented by the Defense of Marriage Act, the California law passed by the voters in 2000 which started the whole ball rolling by reserving the married state to men and women – one of each.

The Tea Party crowd will be similarly heartened because the ruling buttresses their basic charge that America has been taken over by communist sons and daughters of Sodom.

The posture of politicians has often been circumspect, because Americans are pretty much evenly divided on the matter. Barack Obama has hopped backward and forward over the fence, letting it be known he “doesn’t personally support gay marriage,” but thinks Prop 8 was wrong and that the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed. He’s for civil unions. In the race to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican, former ebay ceo Meg Whitman, says her religious beliefs – Presbyterian –compel her to oppose same sex marriage, though she’s all for civil unions. The Democratic candidate, Jerry Brown, twittered his support for Judge Walker.

Legal experts say Walker wrote a crafty decision supposedly establishing a vigorous factual support base supportive of gay marriage. In fact his animus against the Prop 8 crowd fairly steams off the page. Most of their arguments, Walker writes, “are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal.”

Walker marshals the testimony mustered by the plaintiffs, those challenging Prop 8, into a veritable thesaurus of the miracles wrought by the marriage ceremony. At the mere overture of “Wilt thou take..” it seems that anxieties about self-worth, the burdens of low self esteem, the shadows of social ostracism dissipate in the warm glow of the marriage contract.

By contrast Judge Walker has nothing but contempt for the crudities of Prop 8’s prime witness, David Blankenhorn, who testified that marriage is “a socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman” with a primary purpose to “regulate filiation.” The state, so Walker coldly characterized Blankenhorn’s views, “has an interest in encouraging sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents to raise children in stable households. Entrenchment of this norm increases the probability that procreation will occur within a marital union. Because same- sex couples’ sexual activity does not lead to procreation, according to proponents the state has no interest in encouraging their sexual activity to occur within a stable marriage. Thus, according to proponents, the state’s only interest is in opposite-sex sexual activity.”

Blankenhorn, the judge went on with the suspicion of a sneer, “testified that others hold to an alternative and, to Blankenhorn, conflicting definition of marriage: ‘a private adult commitment’ that focuses on ‘the tender feelings that the spouses have for one another.’”

Judge Walker then dismissed Blankenhorn’s testimony as worthless, remarking that the writings of this former Harvard man were not peer-reviewed!

Tender feelings notwithstanding, financial factors were often invoked in the plaintiffs’ testimony. Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, a male gay couple, said they challenged Prop 8 because marriage has a “special meaning” that would alter their relationships with family and others. Zarrillo described daily struggles that arise because he is unable to marry Katami or refer to Katami as his husband. ‘My partner and I want to open a joint bank account,’ and we’re hearing, ‘Is it a business account? A partnership?’

Other witnesses cited favorably by the judge testified San Francisco “lost and continues to lose money” because Proposition 8 slashed the number of weddings performed in San Francisco and “decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits.”

“What we’re really talking about in the nonquantifiable impacts,” declared one pro-gay marriage witness, “are the long-term advantages of marriage as an institution, and the long-term costs of discrimination as a way that weakens people’s productivity and integration into the labor force.”

Same-sex marriage was hailed in Judge Walker’s courtroom as a social stabilizer, an essentially conservative force. It seems, there are more than than 107,000 same-sex couples living in California and in Judge Walker’s approving resume of testimony, “are similar to married couples. According to Census 2000, they live throughout the state, are racially and ethnically diverse, have partners who depend upon one another financially, and actively participate in California’s economy. Census data also show that 18 per cent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.” Mind you, California has 37 million people in it, so 200,000 or so people in same-sex stable relations is a pretty small drop in the turkey baster.

In fact the drive for gay marriage is against the trend of the times, which is the single state, or people increasingly united - depending on the state they live in - by some form of civil union for the purpose of benefits, pensions, health care, wills, inheritances and so forth. Across America, on the last Census, there were 100 million unmarried employees, consumers, taxpayers, and voters who headed up a majority of households in 22 states, more than 380 cities.

Gays are crowding to board a sinking ship. Married couples with kids, who filled about 90 per cent of residences a century ago, now total about 20 per cent. Nearly 30 per cent of homes are inhabited by someone who lives alone -- no doubt awaiting foreclosure. The 2010 Census should show further dramatic changes.

If he’s for civil union, Barack Obama should give marriage, straight or gay, the coup de grace by pressing for a revision of federal laws to allow those in civil unions – straight and gay - to inherit their due portion of Social Security benefits of their deceased partners. That really would be a gamechanger.

I’m for anything that upsets the applecart but why rejoice when state and church extend their grip, which is what marriage is all about. Assimilation is not liberation, and the invocation of "equality" as the great attainment of these gay marriages should be challenged.

As that excellent San Francisco lesbian paper, Ultra Violet, once put it,

“Marriage isn’t a civil right. It’s a civil wrong. We always thought that one of the good things about being a lesbian, or gay man, is that you don't have to get married. There is a basic conflict here, between those who see the gay movement as a way to gain acceptance in straight society, and lesbians and gay men who are fighting to create a society in our own image. A decent and humane society where we can be free. The origins of the LGBTQ movement are revolutionary. The rebellions at Stonewall and San Francisco City Hall were led by drag queens and butches who rejected heterosexual roles and restrictions…According to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, there are 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities that are automatically accorded to married people. Why should we fight for 1,138 rights for some people, instead of all rights for all people?

“The right wingers say marriage is a sacred religious institution. We agree. The state has no business getting involved in religious institutions, from sanctioning personal unions to legislating what schoolgirls should wear on their heads.”

Mind you, as a friend of mine remarks, “Practically in this poisonous capitalist climate where marriage is being promoted as a principle of female and child submission, the desire for marriage by gays is nothing but a security measure to obtain equal right in property and inheritance rights. Since we all live and perform within this bondage why deny them the rights to profit by this system too? To be holier than thou, expecting gays to be above this kind of domination is the worst sort of oppression.”
Final irony. The Tea Party howls that communist sodomites are destroying America. Judge Walker, one of two openly gay federal judges in America, was given his first appointment to the bench by Ronald Reagan, advanced by George Bush Sr and, as a libertarian, avers that selection of lawyers judging financial and drug cases should be governed by public auction. He’s no Commie. Anyway, Commies were often notable for their enormously long marriages. In the old days I was always being asked along to some spry Red couple’s golden or diamond anniversary, the premises invariably wreathed in cigarette smoke. There are some no doubt still out there, heading for the granite anniversary, which is the 90th – which surely must take the physical form of the tombstone at their heads, cigarettes extinguished at last.


The Judge Who Slew Prop. 8

By Eugene Robinson

The 14th Amendment is a mighty sword, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker used it Wednesday to flay and shred all the specious arguments—and I mean all of them—that are used to deny full marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans. Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow.

Walker found that California’s Proposition 8, which sought to ban gay marriage in the state, violated not one but two of the amendment’s clauses—those guaranteeing due process, and equal protection under the law. By deciding the case on constitutional grounds, and by crafting such a detailed and comprehensive ruling, Walker all but guaranteed that the issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

It is not irrational for proponents of gay marriage to worry how the high court will finally rule, given its recent record of conservative activism. But Walker’s ruling will not be so easy to assail. At trial, the losing side presented a shockingly weak case. By contrast, the plaintiffs’ legal team—led by two superlawyers from opposite ends of the political spectrum, conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies—offered witnesses and arguments that covered every conceivable base.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker concluded. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

That’s the kind of language that qualifies as “sweeping.”

Federal judges hate it when journalists note which president appointed them, because they reject the notion that being named by a Republican or a Democrat has any bearing on how they interpret and apply the law. But in this case, which seems likely to achieve landmark status, it’s worth noting that Walker is no card-carrying liberal. Known as a conservative with a libertarian streak, Walker was first nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His appointment was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, because a group of House Democrats—led by Nancy Pelosi—claimed he was insensitive to gays and the poor. George Bush the Elder renewed Walker’s nomination in 1989 and managed to get it through.

It is also worth noting that both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times have reported that Walker is gay. The judge has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, and the legal team defending Proposition 8 did not raise the issue—perhaps because Walker has shown no hesitation to rule against gay plaintiffs or defendants when that is what the law requires.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, has been used to prohibit states of the former Confederacy from denying full citizenship to freed slaves; to guarantee that protections of the Bill of Rights are applied throughout the nation; and to invalidate the Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation.

The clause guaranteeing equal protection under the law was the basis of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling in which the Supreme Court banned discrimination in public schools. Walker used the same clause to rule that there was no “rational justification” for treating same-sex relationships as inferior. “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court used the due process clause in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision that struck down laws against interracial marriage. Walker used the same language to rule that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it denies a “fundamental” right to selected citizens without a legitimate, let alone compelling, reason to do so.

One decision by one federal judge does not settle the controversy over gay marriage. But Walker’s 136-page ruling lays down a formidable marker because it changes the terms of the debate. He frames gay marriage as a question involving the most basic, cherished rights that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. In doing so, he raises the stakes sky-high: Are gays and lesbians full citizens of this country, or are they something less?

Walker stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run.

© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

Story Options

Main Headlines Page

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A word from our sponsor


Check out these other Fine TGS sites
Texas Nationalist Movement


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A word from our sponsor


CNBC's War on America

My Account

Sign up as a New User
Lost your password?


Latest Lineup of Hard to Find Books



Look at Me

What's New


No new stories

Comments last 2 days

No new comments

Links last 2 weeks

No new links

Media Gallery last 7 days

No new media items


For Mature Thinkers Only

Add this News Scroller to your Website

Just use this snippet of code!/