{"id":433,"date":"2010-08-05T04:00:12","date_gmt":"2010-08-05T10:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/?p=433"},"modified":"2010-08-05T04:00:12","modified_gmt":"2010-08-05T10:00:12","slug":"prop-8-judge-legally-right-morally-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/?p=433","title":{"rendered":"Prop 8 Judge: Legally Right, Morally Wrong!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>In\u00a0his stunningly unsurprising and entirely predictable ruling handed down yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.\u00a0 The popular ballot initiative, which was\u00a0passed\u00a0by a 52% majority of California voters in 2008, amended the state constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California<\/span><\/em>.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Judge Walker’ opinion, taken together with last month’s overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act by a federal judge in Boston and the growing number of\u00a0states that have already legalized gay marriage, will add\u00a0strength\u00a0to the gay marriage movement throughout the country.\u00a0 This issue, of necessity, will ultimately\u00a0come before the United States Supreme Court.\u00a0 Within two to four years from now, I believe that the\u00a0majority of\u00a0Justices will rule that same-sex marriage must be granted the same constitutional protections as traditional marriage.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Especially over the next few days, most political\u00a0and religious\u00a0conservatives, including evangelical Christians, will paint Judge Walker’s opinion as faulty, wrong, morally bankrupt, cataclysmic, or worse.\u00a0 Many of the\u00a0talking heads will rail against this opinion as yet another example of a liberal\u00a0and unrestrained judiciary run amok (although they will conveniently forget\u00a0that Walker was originally nominated to the Court by none other than Ronald Reagan).\u00a0 Some will even\u00a0argue that Judge Walker’s sexual orientation (yes, he is gay)\u00a0influenced his judgment in this case and that the only reason that he ruled as he did is because he is a homosexual man.\u00a0 However, before one automatically concludes that Judge Walker’s “gayness” prevented him from rendering an impartial verdict, we should ask ourselves if we would feel the same way if the judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8 and he or she happened to\u00a0be a conservative Southern Baptist.\u00a0 Would we question a Christian\u00a0judge’s\u00a0impartiality if\u00a0he or she\u00a0would have upheld Proposition 8’s traditional definition of marriage?\u00a0 You can be the judge on that question.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Before telling you why I think the judge was legally right, let me briefly tell you why I think he\u00a0was morally wrong.\u00a0 I readily admit that I approach this issue from a religious viewpoint.\u00a0 I can do no other and I make no apologies for that.\u00a0 You may\u00a0vigorously disagree with my opinion, and I would defend your right to do so.\u00a0 Feel\u00a0free to comment (keep it\u00a0civil)\u00a0and let me know how you feel and what you believe, even if you\u00a0differ from my perspective.\u00a0\u00a0Quite simply, I believe that Scripture — both Old and New Testaments — is clear about God’s design and purpose for marriage.\u00a0 Marriage is an institution from God, not from the state.\u00a0 From the very beginning of creation, the LORD God brought a man and a woman together in the bonds of marriage.\u00a0 This design and purpose of marriage — one man and one woman —\u00a0was affirmed by Jesus in the New Testament when He said:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh?\u00a0 So they are no longer\u00a0two but one flesh.\u00a0 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”\u00a0 Matthew 19:4-6<\/strong><\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0In addition to Jesus’ affirmation of marriage between one man and one woman, there are numerous passages of Scripture that clearly teach that homosexuality (which would include\u00a0gay marriage) is contrary to God’s will.\u00a0 However, regardless of what I believe the Bible teaches about homosexuality or gay marriage (or any other issue), I believe (and have written) that the Church and Christians must respond in grace\u00a0to our gay friends, family, and neighbors (see here<\/a> and here<\/a>).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Even though I dislike the outcome in this case, I can\u00a0understand why Judge Walker issued the legal opinion that he did.\u00a0 Judge Walker functioned both as judge and jury in this case, acting as\u00a0the trier of\u00a0fact and law.\u00a0 As such, he\u00a0listened to\u00a0opening and closing arguments, weighed witness testimony, and received evidence pertinent to the case.\u00a0\u00a0After\u00a0reading and\u00a0closely skimming this\u00a0138 page opinion<\/a>,\u00a0I believe Judge Walker, in\u00a0large part,\u00a0ruled\u00a0in favor of gay marriage\u00a0on the basis of the\u00a0credibility, or lack thereof, of the witnesses called to testify before him in this case.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Reading between the lines, Judge Walker thought that the two witnesses called to testify in favor of Prop 8 were loons (not necessarily a legal term).\u00a0 In one of the most important landmark cases to be heard in federal court, why on earth would the proponents of\u00a0traditional marriage\u00a0call\u00a0a total of two witnesses to testify to the constitutionality of the ballot initiative?\u00a0 Any time that you call witnesses, you run the risk that the trier of fact (in this case Judge Walker) will find their credibility lacking.\u00a0 When you only have two, you don’t have much margin for error.\u00a0In this case, Judge Walker gave almost no weight to the testimony of David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, who testified on behalf of Prop 8.\u00a0 <\/span>You know things\u00a0will not\u00a0go well for the proponents of traditional marriage when the Judge says this about one of only two witnesses for your cause:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn\u2019s qualification as an expert. For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents\u2019 factual assertions. (Opinion, page 37)\u00a0Blankenhorn\u2019s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight. (Opinion, page 49)\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ouch!\u00a0 The other\u00a0pro-Prop 8 witness did not fare much better.\u00a0 Judge Walker, in weighing the testimony of Kenneth P. Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College,\u00a0who was called as an\u00a0expert in American and California politics, concluded:<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
Miller\u2019s credibility was further undermined because the opinions he offered at trial were inconsistent with the opinions he expressed before he was retained as an expert. Specifically, Miller previously wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process, see PX1869 (Challenge of Initiative Reform, 41 Santa Clara L Rev 1037 (2001) contradicting his trial testimony that gays and lesbians are not politically vulnerable with respect to the initiative process.\u00a0 Miller admitted that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 based on anti-gay sentiment. (Opinion, page 53)\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Miller\u2019s opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence. (Opinion, page 54)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Not only did Judge Walker find the two pro-Prop 8 witnesses to have little to no credibility, he found the 17 pro-gay marriage witnesses to be credible:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Having observed and considered the testimony presented, the court concludes that plaintiffs\u2019 lay witnesses provided credible testimony . . . (Opinion, page 25)\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs\u2019 experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified.\u00a0 Moreover, the experts\u2019 demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs\u2019 proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified. (Opinion, page 28)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0The proponents of traditional marriage will no doubt appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s most\u00a0liberal\u00a0Appellate Court.\u00a0 After a fast-track hearing, this case is most certainly headed for the United States Supreme Court.\u00a0 On appeal, the higher courts will\u00a0almost always accept the findings of fact from the\u00a0trial court.\u00a0 Judge Walker has done a masterful job in crafting his opinion in such a way that the Appellate\u00a0Court or the Supreme Court will not likely even question, much less reject, his findings of fact, including\u00a0his conclusions regarding the credibility of witnesses.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>Within the next few years, gay marriage will enjoy all the rights and privileges now afforded to traditional marriage.\u00a0\u00a0Many will look back and\u00a0thank Judge Walker and the Prop 8 case for\u00a0pushing same-sex marriage over the finish line.\u00a0\u00a0Why did Judge Walker rule the way he did?\u00a0 Because of the witnesses.\u00a0 Whether you find yourself in a federal court\u00a0defending traditional marriage or you find yourself in the court of public opinion\u00a0defending your reputation,\u00a0Credible Witnesses <\/a>can ultimately make or break your case!\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span>\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span>\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0his stunningly unsurprising and entirely predictable ruling handed down yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.\u00a0 The popular ballot initiative, which was\u00a0passed\u00a0by a 52% majority of California voters in 2008, amended the state constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-homosexual-agenda"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1LP7G-6Z","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}