www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Judge Who Overturned "Prop 8" Lives the "Gay Lifestyle"

There's a cartoon in our paper this morning. A man appearing before a judge with four women in bridal attire. The comment underneath says

"Your Honor, since you REDEFINED MARRIAGE(sic), is there any reason I can't marry more than one?"

What is odd about this whole thing, is that Judge Walker's ruling that this violated the 14th amendment already has precedent in Baker v Nelson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

As far as I know, Baker v. Nelson wasn't even cited in the case of Prop. 8, but it should have been as it applies directly here.

Judge Walker should be over-ruled on this alone since th eUS Supreme Court refused to hear Baker v. Nelson because there was no compelling federal issue. This directly contradicts the opinion of Judge Walker.

Of, course. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
We now have opened the possibility of consanguinuity, plural marriage, marriage to minors, marriage between minors.

The reason that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment does not apply is that everyone is entitled to marry. All people are entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex. Also, the prohibitions of whom one cannot marry is applicable to all equally as well.
This is not the problem of the "separate but equal" issues of the 1960's. Everyone is legally entitled to be married with the same allowances and prohibitions.

The argument that this prohibits the freedom of people with same sex attraction is a false argument for those reasons.

This opens so many issues. IMHO the Constitution and Christian beliefs are the issues here. Look at the violence in other countries that do not have our US Constitution and see the future of the USA on many issues.
Pray for wisdom and that this country turns toward God again.

The key issue of bias and conflict is that his decision benefits himself directly, because he desires to marry his partner.

Further, as Stuart points out, the Supreme court previously refused to hear such challenges, and further still, the defense of marriage act defines marriage:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

His ruling is in DIRECT violation of the DOMA.

He's in need of censure.

The section of doma defining marriage as the union between man and woman was declared unconstitutional.

In all seriousness, we could very well see an effort to overturn the prohibition of polygamous marriages - the original prohibition was a blatant attack on the Mormons and their understanding of the requirements of Christian marriage (I obviously do not agree with the Mormons on that understanding, but the American courts are not empowered to decide on doctrinal differences).

Even as it is now, advocates of polygamy (which, again, I do not agree with) enjoy pointing out that "serial plural marriage" is effectively legal in consequence of the divorce laws.

Fr. Serge

The problem with plural marriages (a sanatized label for harems) is that they are sexist!!! LOL! Why shouldn't the one wife have many husbands?!! LOL!!

Dear Aliki,

Presumably the judge in California would agree with you. Since it appears that you were joking, I'm not an admirer of polyandry either!

I did once have a parishioner who enjoyed claiming that he had a harem: one wife, two young daughters.

Anyway, I beg to be excused from exploring such matters myself.

Fr. Serge

"U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act's denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples "offends" the notion of states' rights as enshrined in the10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution." ( Link [blogs.abcnews.com] )

It is doubtful that President Obama will appeal this. Publicly he says he does not support homosexual "marriage" but his actions to date do not demonstrate any support for traditional marriage.

This ruling on DOMA essentially says that this is a state matter. So under that logic the California voters' decision should have been upheld.

My wife used to make the same reference: 1 wife, 4 daughters (and one neutered male cat, and a lesbian cat).

Anyway, a couple of comments as a lawyer:

* The supreme court not takeing a case means nothing, zilch.
* Oddly, the judge only has a conflict if he's wrong, not right.
* He isn't bound by any ruling outside the ninth circuit other than the UCSC.

Those said, he's quite wrong on the law. He tossed out roughly 700 years of law on the nature of marriage to start leaping to conclusions about its nature.

hawk, esq.

Doc, it's a clear conflict to rule a case which benefits oneself. His expressed desire to marry his partner is a clear indication of self-benefit. If he were instead a celibate single gay man, it would be less clear, but he's long-term partnered...

Think of the possibilities for inheritance.

I "marry" my daughter and she stays married to her husband. Ditto my wife and our son. How about we both marry both of our children?

When either or both os us dies, PA law says there is no estate and no estate tax between spouses. It all passes tax free and without probate.

Don't have to consummate (gag!!) just get it on paper like people who try to circumvent the law on immigration.

That's kind of murky in this case, which is why it matters whether or not he's right. We wouldn't require every black, Catholic, and Jewish judge to recuse themselves from every cross burning on a lawn, even though though these are the three groups that would benefit the most. *IF* he were right, the same logic would apply.