On Wednesday, unless there is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, gay and lesbian couples in California once again will be able to marry. Like other couples around the world, they will be able to pledge to support each other, buy some dishes, raise families, argue about the bills, maybe sit on a park bench years from now and chuckle at the hysterical old claims that their lives together would destroy the institution of marriage.
Hmmm. That’s interesting. They can buy dishes, argue about bills, sit on park benches, all without marriage. So why does the Times pretend that they need gay marriage to do that?
But here come the lies:
Because of Judge Walker’s firmly reasoned and occasionally soaring decision earlier this month, there was no reason to continue the prohibition. After a full-blown trial that gave opponents every opportunity to prove the harm caused by same-sex marriage, the court found that it caused no harm whatsoever to the state or society. But substantial harm was caused to gay and lesbian couples by depriving them of their constitutional rights.
Most constitutional experts think the decision is a joke. It is downright bizarre. First, the judge was gay and stood to gain from the decision, so he should have recused himself. According to reports, he and his partner will now be able to marry. Second, the trial was strictly a legal matter that could have been disposed of in summary judgment, yet the judge decided to hold a full blown trial, with testimony, from experts on gayness. He even bent the rules to try to televise the whole trial, until the Supreme Court squashed him on that point.
Many or most of the expert witnesses were gay as well, and the testimony the judge heard was a lot of the standard gay marriage activist garbage. But the judge swallowed it whole. Then, the judge completely discounted anything the other side said, bringing up rather idiotic reasons for doing so. For example, the other side put on a political science professor who testified that gays had considerable political power. Which was an all-too obvious fact, since neither the Governor of California nor the Attorney General showed up to defend the lawsuit. But, the judge discounted the professor’s testimony because he hadn’t studied such things as gays in the workplace (which is irrelevant to whether they have political power) or because he hadn’t read books by people such as Andrew Sullivan. I kid you not.
The judge’s opinion even went on an on about how religion is the most terrible thing in the world, an oppressor of gays, and their biggest obstacle.
It was a show trial, a sham of the wost type. The Soviet Union would have been proud.