And...Walker tried to pretend, in essence, that the only form of evidence a trial judge may consider is expert witness testimony in court. He even ignored expert witness testimony when it clashed with his own views. Harvard professor Nancy Cott, a historian of marriage, favors [neutering] marriage, but even she freely admitted in trial that [neutering] marriage represented a momentous change in the public meaning of marriage, and that the effects of this change would be impossible to determine in advance.
Walker's ruling, on the other hand, creates a fantasy alternate reality in which it is simply a "finding of fact" that [brideless or groomless] marriage has always been part of the "historical core" or our marriage tradition. Walker ignored the evidence presented from distinguished social scientists, as well as previous court decisions, that "responsible procreation" has always been considered a core purpose of marriage, in addition to evidence that children benefit by being raised by married mothers and fathers.
To give you an example of how extreme Walker is, he ruled that orientation is a protected class subject to strict scrutiny -- ignoring no less than 10 higher-court decisions to the contrary.
He doesn't contest, distinguish or disagree with these binding precedents. He literally ignores their existence.
[More after the jump.]
And as for poll dancing...
In the latest poll from Public Policy Polling conducted Aug. 6-9, Americans who were asked whether they believed gay marriage "should be legal or illegal" opposed gay marriage almost 2-to-1 -- 57 percent opposed, 33 percent in favor.
I'm always interested in the wording used in these polls. By legislature or direct vote of the people, most states have reaffirmed the definition of marriage. People seem to be most strongly in favor of keeping the definition of marriage the same if domestic partnerships or civil unions are included in the polling. I can honestly say I don't want to make "gay marriage" illegal, because I would never want to use the force of government to stop two (or three, or four, etc.) men or women from having what they think of as a marriage ceremony, a reception, a honeymoon, and then living together and asking others, including their employers, to consider them married. Nor do I want a government employee asking those who are applying for state marriage paperwork (or domestic partnership paperwork, for that matter) for their sexual orientation. But I would vote against proposed legislation to remove the bride+groom requirement from marriage licensing, and I am strongly against a court imposing that removal on a state, especially one that has voted to keep that requirement.
Also, Robert Knight speculates about what would happen if SCOTUS imposed Walker's decision nationwide. He compares the hypothetical decision to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.
I think the most serious fallout from such a decision would build up gradually rather than immediately. Certainly, as we have seen, adoption would be immediately impacted. I also think custody issues and third party reproduction would be as well. In academia, the workplace, media, and any public accommodation or government program/agency, it could easily get to the point where simply saying things like "men and women are different", "fathers and mothers are different", or "children need a mother and a father" are considered "hate speech" and grounds for firing or a lawsuit. Also, look for polygamists to grain ground in their quest to be legally married to more than one person. (I wrote more about the possible effects here.)
Hopefully, though, SCOTUS will get this case and rule in a way that prevents states from being forced to neuter their marriage licensing.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment