Judge Walker and Supposed Lack of “Evidence” of Marriage’s Procreative Purpose [Updated]

We here at Opine Editorials have watched this issue and noted that there is an 800lb gorilla in the room with us. To us the 800lb gorilla in the room is how much marriage is meant to address the need for responsible procreation in society.

So given the recent Walker decision I was left to wonder, was the 800lb gorilla just not admitted to the court room? Well it turns out it was there. And, well, Walker ignored it. It wasn't even a demure missing of the massive beast, it was a comical turning his head to and fro, telegraphing his intent to ignore it. From Ed Whelan's ongoing look at the decision and aftermath I will provide a few quotes. Note the quotes omit the reasoning behind them, and I am to blame for that. You'll want to read the links to understand why he says what I quote.

Among the many distortions and falsehoods that Judge Vaughn Walker has tried to propagate through his anti-Prop 8 ruling is his claim that the Prop 8 proponents—who intervened as defendants in the case and valiantly carried out the role of defending Prop 8 when the state defendants abandoned their duties to do so—“failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.” (Slip op. at 11.) Walker’s claim, which many in the media evidently unfamiliar with the case have parroted, operates to divert attention from the manifest bias that he exhibited throughout the case and that pervades his ruling. But in fact the Prop 8 proponents offered a thorough case that Walker almost entirely ignored—a case resting on a broad array of judicial authority, recognized scholarship in various academic fields, extensive documentary evidence, and elementary common sense.

You really should read this... Sometimes being clever gets you stuck in twice as bad a place. Walker's ruling will be his shame, not for his reasoning, but for how important the items are that he called unimportant. Also check out...

In sum: Walker’s treatment of this point reflects brazen dishonesty or stunning incompetence, or some combination of the two. It is a microcosm of his entire ruling.

And...

Indeed, an overriding purpose of marriage in every society is, and has always been, to approve and regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society. In particular, through the institution of marriage, societies have sought to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by the mothers and fathers who brought them into this world.

And in recent news this morning Whelan has excerpts from the Prop 8 appeal...

And again, contrary to the district court’s conclusion below, this Court, and the overwhelming majority of other courts, both state and federal, to address the issue have concluded that the opposite-sex definition of marriage rationally serves society’s interest in regulating sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of those relationships benefits rather than harms society, by increasing the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable family units by the mothers and fathers who brought them into this world.

The district court did not confront the Supreme Court’s holding in Baker, binding authority from this Court, or any of the well established lines of authority opposed to its conclusions. It did not distinguish them. It did not explain why it believed they were wrongly decided. It did not even acknowledge their existence. It simply ignored them.

[emphasis, mine]

[Update: Whelan quotes the Prop 8 stay motion to the 9th circuit court of appeals on whether or not gender is meaningful to the marriage and family construct. He's also put the whole appeal online, while reviewing all Walker's mischief to this point saying, "I can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case".]