Queeriforniageddon 2010

Turd in a suit Ken Ham has weighed in on the judgment against baby Jesus, in other words the striking down of the transparently unconstitutional Prop 8.

So, what can this asshat possibly add to the discussion?

Well, we should not be surprised by such a ruling from this judge when Fox News [...] reported:

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory. [...]

First, I point out that Proverbs 23:7 states, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

Ultimately, the ruling has nothing to do with the US Constitution, but everything to do with a person’s heart, and how a worldview based on a person’s starting point will interpret the Constitution. In an ultimate sense, there are only two religions in the world—one starts with God’s inerrant and authoritative Word, and the other starts with man’s word (opinion).

Oh, that's right. Absolutely nothing.

Let's see what it has to do with the Constitution. In the ruling, constitutionality is mentioned, by my count, at least 49 times, and that's only the number of times the letter string "constitution" is changed to the string "panty time fun" using my Word search-and-replace function. ("Panty time fun" hardly appears at all in the original ruling.)

I like the conclusion myself, which will probably be one of the most important conclusions regarding civil rights in this decade:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in

singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than

enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex

couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California

has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and

because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its

constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,

the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Long, detailed explanations of the non-logic used by proponents of the amendment are outlined above, and, if I understand what legal analysts are saying, what we walk away with is a finding of fact, that is, that it was a ruling on facts, not on law. Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic has a succinct summary of the facts that will have to be overruled in order for an appeal to be successful. These include:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

By the way, I'm getting fucking tired of the ad hominem, "LOOKY THE FAG JUDGE! AROOOOOO!" Fuck you. Look at the findings, bitch, and deal with them.

HJ