THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has overturned California’s Proposition 8, which bans homosexual marriage. Vaughan’s ruling comes hot on the heels of District Judge Susan Bolton’s stay against implementation of Arizona’s immigration law. These two decisions, coming together so closely, and considered along with Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s Ricci decision (later overturned) and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s behavior as Dean of Harvard Law, prompt me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a “liberal judge.” A so-called liberal judge is merely an enforcer. The California decision, a slap in the face to the California electorate, will undoubtedly increase the likelihood of a congressional fiasco for the Democrats in November. My main point, however, is my sudden insight: a liberal judge is not a judge; he or she is an enforcer.

                           — Comments —

Reader N. writes:

Mr. Bertonneau writes: a  liberal judge is not a judge; he or she is an enforcer.

I do not usually employ quotes from popular culture in political essays, but this sudden, shocking discovery by Bertonneau clearly deserves the following:

“Welcome to the party, pal!”  —John McClane, “Diehard”

N. adds:

This interview between Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online and Brian Brown, executive director of the National Oranization for Marriage, is very much worth reading. He is blunt and to the point.

Excerpt:

“Marriage deserves its unique status because unions of husband and wife really are unique — and uniquely necessary. A civilization that wants to survive over the long haul cannot dedicate itself and its core founding documents to repudiating human nature, and what all human societies need to survive. To make a marriage you need a husband and wife, because
children need a mom and a dad. People like Judge Walker who can find some analogy between this idea and racism are living in an alternate universe that will not and cannot withstand the test of time and history. “

Lydia Sherman writes:

The judge insulted seven million voters. What better way to prevent voting, than to throw away their votes? I thought the courts were only one part of a balance of power, but in the last 20 years they have become the power. If the liberals do not like the way people vote, they just shop around for a liberal lawyer, who shops it to a liberal judge, and there you have it. We are over-taken.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2

When the government of the people begins to throw out the votes of the people, we must change the culture through the family. That way, we can vote every single day.

Natassia writes:

Why is everyone calling Proposition 8 a “gay marriage ban”? 

It doesn’t ban anything. 

It simply defines what marriage is according to California state law. It doesn’t ban gay people from “getting married.” It simply doesn’t force Californians to legally recognize (and subsequently subsidize) sexual relationships between two people of the same sex. We shouldn’t fall into the trap that the gay marriage activists and liberal media have laid out for us. Nothing is being banned. No ones rights are being stepped on. 

Marriage is just being defined.

Laura writes:

Excellent point.

Bartholomew writes:

I thought Mr. Bertonneau’s analysis was spot on, but I’m not so sure about Ms. Lopez’ from NRO.

N, quoting Lopez, wrote, 

People like Judge Walker who can find some analogy between this idea and racism are living in an alternate universe that will not and cannot withstand the test of time and history.

Actually, I have to side with Judge Walker on this one. Can Lopez really not discern any commonality between a person’s race and sex? What if we played that old children’s game–Which of These is Not Like the Other–and we wrote Race, Sex and, say, Vocation on a sheet of paper. Would Lopez really, truly struggle to select the correct answer?

Maybe she would, but then it just shows how clueless mainstream “conservatives” at the NRO really are. The fundamental disagreement between the Left and the Right concerns our bodies, specifically, whether they matter. The Right says they do, and the Left says they don’t…

…while the NRO babbles on about “alternate universes”, or whatever.

Laura writes:

Yes, the left frequently insists that the racism and homosexual rights issues are the same. And, those from the right often retort: well, they’re not the same issue at all. But in this sense they are. They both involve the question of whether our physical nature matters and whether it is bound with our social identity.

Please follow and like us: