Rich Lowry (ASSHAT): Gay marriage and the world according to Judge Walker

[WillParkinson]

National Review

Updated 59 minutes ago Updated Aug 7, 2010 12:04AM
It’s safe to assume that Judge Vaughn Walker voted against Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California back in 2008. Throughout the trial on the measure in his courtroom, he proved himself as zealously in favor of gay marriage — if not more so — than the plaintiffs petitioning to have it declared unconstitutional.

If he voted “no” a couple of years ago, Judge Walker wasn’t alone. More than 6.4 million Californians voted against Proposition 8. At 48 percent, that was almost enough to constitute a majority. But Judge Walker presumably got two bites at the apple: First in the voting booth, then from the bench when he invalidated the votes of the 52 percent of people who voted the other way. It’s nice to be judge.

Judge Walker’s decision is such a raw exercise of judicial imperiousness, he might as well have gone all the way and sentenced the defenders of Proposition 8 to suffer, Chinese-style, a parade of shame through the streets of San Francisco wearing placards emblazoned “I Support Bizarre and Retrograde Social Practices.”



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50066785-82/judge-walker-marriage-gay.html.csp

[Ken Burch]

1. Rich's whole argument is "the voters said 'no'-that's ALL that matters"

All you have to do to refute that is to substitute "interracial marriage" or "the abolition of slavery" for "same-sex marriage" and quote his arguments back word-for-word.

In other words-he's got nuthin'.

[HillWilliam]

2. If *any* of the whining asshats on the right had bothered to READ

the live play-by-play and then the ruling afterward, they'd fully understand that the defendants didn't even bother to present a case. At all. "Because we say so" doesn't cut it in a court of law. The plaintiffs presented solid evidence, facts, and studies by reputable sources.

All the defendants could come up with was blithering nonsense and "well, it just IS because we say so". They didn't back their shit, not even once. Their best player, Tam, could only cite Reichers (y'know, Rent-boy Man). Judge Walker gave Tam several opportunities to support his claims. Tam said he believed Reichers because he saw other things on the Internet.

Hoo-boy, that's reliable testimony if I ever saw it :sarcasm:

Whine on, wingnuts. Pissing and moaning when you get called on your baseless claims and hatred only makes you look stupider and more petty than you already did. You had to have gotten up mighty early and packed a lunch to have topped that.

[WillParkinson]

3. An excellent synopsis!

Thanks much. :-)

[Unvanguard]

4. As far as "Bizarre and Retrogade Social Practices" go, I think Prop. 8 takes the cake. n/t

[PanoramaIsland]

5. Someone from the National Review doesn't like Judge Walker's ruling. How... um... surprising? n/t

[Loudmxr]

6. My conservative buddy once said, "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

I don't know why he said that. A simple "Hello. Howya doin'?" would have done. But said it all he did.