Another Roundup of Commentaries on Perry Ruling

Here's another roundup of commentaries on Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the trial over Proposition 8. Most were found on Townhall.com. Ken Connor denounces Walker’s activism in this case.

Judge Walker's ruling is the height of judicial arrogance because the judge treats the word "marriage" like wax which can be shaped and molded into whatever form the judge chooses. He does the same thing with the words "due process" and "equal protection."

After citing Humpty Dumpty, he goes on to write:

Will they be ruled by a constitution whose words have objective, propositional meaning or will they be ruled by judicial despots who strip the words of their meaning and twist them to accomplish a social agenda never envisioned by the Founding Fathers and not sanctioned by the American people?

Debra J. Saunders chides Schwarzenegger and Brown.

When 52 percent of California voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would defend the measure during the inevitable appeals. Then, as is his fashion, Brown changed his mind.

Ditto Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed same-sex marriage bills passed by the Legislature in deference to California voters who passed an earlier same-sex marriage statute in 2000.

But after Proposition 8 passed, both refused to defend the measure.

[More after the jump.]

Schwarzenegger is no doubt thinking ahead to his return to Hollywood.

The conservative website http://www.flashreport.org/ is working to push the governor to defend the measure. "You took an oath when you became governor to uphold the Constitution of this state, and that includes the duty to see that the law is faithfully executed, including the constitutional right of the people of this state to amend their Constitution by initiative," explained constitutional law expert John C. Eastman.

The heat, however, really should be on Brown, who now is running for governor. As AG, it's Brown's job to represent the people in court.

As former state attorney general and now Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, put it, "I defended laws that I voted against. That was my obligation. You do your best job. You try to find the best arguments that you can, irrespective of the subject matter."

And...

Problem: The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a 6-1 vote -- which tells you there's a lot of room for debate. At least, Brown could have hired outside lawyers to represent the voters if he found defending Proposition 8 so discomforting.

Dennis Prager provides his observations:

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

For some activists, that is the goal for which neutering marriage provides the means.

Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column -- the "T" has been added to "GLB:" "Transgendered" has been added to "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual." "T" does not represent transsexuals -- people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people. "Transgendered" refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women's clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left's primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn't matter.

I do not think it is unreasonable for the law to ask a person to stick with identifying with one sex, and to allow employers to ask employees to dress appropriately to that sex, or for property owners to ask people to use restrooms appropriate for that sex.

Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that "proved" that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.

These newer "studies" of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies -- studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers' own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is -- only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept "studies" in place of common sense.

He then suggests:

Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

Some will say "no". Not because they really believe their answer, but because they don't like where "yes" leads. The ones who answer "no" and really mean it are delusional.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III had a commentary in the Washington Post.

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings.

And...

Yet Walker's opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of renowned scholars presented at trial in support of Proposition 8, including that of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, history professor Robina Quale and social scientist Kingsley Davis. It ignores the writings of legal giant William Blackstone and philosophers John Locke and Bertrand Russell. It even refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."