Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PROP. 8: Decision based on faulty reasoning

Letter by Roy D. Broman, University Place on Aug. 6, 2010 at 2:33 pm with 38 Comments »
August 6, 2010 2:33 pm

Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the will of the people of California when he stated that a law against homosexual marriage was based upon a moral standard.

This is an interesting legal conclusion. Using similar reasoning, there should be no law against robbery. Laws formulated against robbery and related crimes are based on moral values. We may say that extortion is likewise based on moral standards. Assault and similar crimes are based on moral standards and values. We may propose similar arguments for laws against deadbeat dads. The list could get quite long.

Remove morality considerations from many laws, and these laws would be automatically invalidated. For those who think this is foolishness, take another look at the judge’s decision. Furthermore, examine the precepts of Darwinism and evolution which fundamentally denies any true morality. If there is no true morality, how can morality be used as an argument against homosexual marriage?

There appears to be duplicity involved in morality considerations in legal decisions. If convenient use, if inconvenient ignore.

Leave a comment Comments → 38
  1. The judge asked the question: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST. Based on the evidence presented, the judge ruled that the moral position held by the Prop 8 supporters was not based on fact and ther was no legitimate government interest in denying Constitutioal rights to one group of individuals based on that private morality. Indeed, there was plenty of factual evidence presented that the moral position offered by proponents was based on fear and falsehoods. Proponents spread lies to the voters about the dangers of gay marriages, when all of the evidence pointed to either a neutral or beneficial effect. People can claim all the moral high ground they want, but when it comes to weighing moral positions of one group of people over another, or to deny Constitutional protections and inalienable rights, like marriage, there must be evidence that states that those moral positions are based on fact and that the consequences of going against those moral positions would be harm to society of to other individuals. No harm to society or to other individuals was shown at the trial to be the result of gay marriage. The same test was made to determine the Constitutionality of the position of the majority of citizens in the South who thought interracial marriage was immoral. Just like gay marriage, the facts won out. There is no damage to society or to other individuals that would allow denying interracial marriages, even though that was a popular thing to do once upon a time and a positiion based on morality. We should all be celebrating that the Constitution triumphs once again over small minds.

  2. beerBoy says:

    Faulty reasoning is equating marriage between two consenting adults to robbery – the forcible taking of another (unconsenting) person’s possessions.

  3. iamjimbo says:

    I have to agree with B… it is faulty reasoning equating marriage with taxes.

  4. Alder50 says:

    Mr Broman is very likely to have concluded as did Judge Walker if Mr Broman had read the entire statement of the issue instead of stopping with the word “moral”.

  5. Alder50, Mr. Broman isn’t the first person to make his point by taking things out of context. Some guy named Breitbart did it recently and caused a big flap.
    I doubt it is accidental, but it is a sign of desperation.

  6. reformedliberal says:

    Well, now the truth is coming out… Judge Walker (surprise, surprise!) is gay.

    Can we get a new judge, please?

  7. ij – if you don’t want taxes then you should renounce your citizenship and go to one of the oil rich Arab emirates.

  8. rl – the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.


  9. iamjimbo says:

    B, you keep projecting motives upon me that aren’t there. I never said I didn’t want taxes. But apparently alot of folks in your party don’t “want taxes” … at least when THEY have to pay them.

    Submitted by beerBoy on October 8, 2008 – 12:54pm.
    Do you have any response to anything that doesn’t show you as an ass? I write a post appreciating your previous response and you come back with a total jerky response. You truly are a douche.

  10. beerBoy says:

    But…if, according to your previous post, taxes are akin to theft…and you “never said I didn’t want taxes” then are we to conclude that you don’t mind being robbed?

  11. reformedliberal, It is demeaning and a slimy accusation to make that a judge would be biased just because they are gay. We will have new judges in the appeals phases. I just hope that heterosexual judges will recuse themselves since they know nothing about being gay, and they must be biased on the side of hetrosexual marriage, right? (that was sarcasm, by the way).

    If you read the decision, you can immediately tell that the lawyers in support of Prop 8 did about the worst job in defending the law that anyone could have done. They did not have expert witnesses or first-hand research in support of straight-only marriage, they did not utilize any scientifcally sound evidence in support of Prop 8 and they could not answer the key Constitutional questions that came up in the trial. Their defense was basically that if a majority of voters want to pass an unconstitutional law, then it should be OK.

    If the judge is found to be biased, then the appeals court can throw the entire thing out. However, if a judge can be accused of bias just because of sexual orientation, then why do male judges get to vote on women’s rights or white judges get to vote on racial issues, etc. .

  12. Sumner401 says:

    Well, now the truth is coming out… Judge Walker (surprise, surprise!) is gay.

    So what?

  13. Roncella says:

    Just read the comments by the liberals who post here as they defend the Judge’s ruling.

    This has been repeated many times. Both Bush’s were border line Rino(Repubs in name only) Republicans, not true Conservatives. Many of their appointments have come back to bite the Conservatives where the sun don’t shine.

    The Judges own personal life style and obvious beliefs should have caused him to recuse himself from this case……..!!

  14. Roncella, perhaps it is you who isn’t a true conservative, but a fringe of the tiniest minority of the farthest right element in this country? I am proud to be a true conservative.

  15. beerBoy says:

    Ron – if a homosexual judge had to recuse himself then, by your logic, a heterosexual judge would have had to too – making the only “fair” judge an ascetic, asexual hermit. I’m thinking that there aren’t a whole lot of qualified federal judges out there who fit that description…..but I might be wrong.

  16. beerBoy says:

    Oh roncella……was Reagan a RINO too?

    Known as a conservative with a libertarian streak, Walker was first nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His appointment was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, because a group of House Democrats – led by Nancy Pelosi – claimed he was insensitive to gays and the poor. George Bush the Elder renewed Walker’s nomination in 1989 and managed to get it through.


  17. My guess would be that Glenn Beck forgot to mention that tiny little detail, beerBoy, or roncella would have been all over it.

  18. Sumner401 says:

    The Judges own personal life style and obvious beliefs should have caused him to recuse himself from this case……..!!

    Why? Should black judges ‘recuse’ themselves from cases that involve other blacks?
    Why would a hetero judge be any better at looking at the Constitutionality of this law?
    I love how you whiners think that unless a case is decided in your twisted favor something must be wrong with the judge.
    And what happened to your love of the Constitution?

  19. dewilson says:

    Roncella – I would truly like a clear definition or description of what a “true conservative” is. They seem to bounce from “smaller government” to demanding government intrusion into personal affairs, demand fiscal responsibility, but spend money ‘off the books’, demand reduced taxes but shove the burden more and more to the middle class; it has never quite jelled in my head what “true conservative” stands for.

  20. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of people I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["true conservative"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know one when I see one.

    Sorry, roncella. I stole your thunder.

  21. No, the judge was not obligated to recuse himself for all the reasons stated here. Was he biased? What human being is not biased to some degree or another, informed by his/her personal life experiences, religious upbringing, etc. ? Find one.

    Much as we might long for a purist to sit on the bench, it can’t happen.The only judge of that kind came and left 2,000 years ago, though rumor has it he will come again to exact final justice one day. Of course many of the folks posting here think that’s sillly, I know. Just tossing it in for good measure.

    And for the record, I think we will all (righties and lefties alike) be quite surprised about who got what right on that day. Just my opinion. Don’t get all worked up over it dewilson or tuddo; your opinion of biblical truth has been made quite clear already.

  22. “The only judge of that kind came and left 2,000 years ago”

    And, he is reported to have said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

  23. iamjimbo says:

    No B, Reagan was a bi-partisan.

  24. Reagan was a bi-partisan.

    Exactly the kind of Republican that gets branded a RINO these days…..

  25. dewilson says:

    That would be the same Mr. Reagan who advocated amnesty for Mexican immigrants. He would probably be burned in effigy by the AZ Republicans and Tea Partiers for such blasphemy these dasy.

    Of course his greatest legacy is to bring us ‘trinkle-down’ economics and hatred for our own government, (ostensibly composed of the people, by the people and for the people) which has translated to the destruction of the middle class, greatly expanding corporate power in terms of making public policy, and creating a super-rich elite where 1% of the richest Americans control 90% of the wealth.

  26. iamjimbo says:

    Speaking of branding… how’s Joe liberman doing?

    … 1% of the richest Americans pay 90% of the taxes too…

  27. iamjimbo, throw out unsubstantiated talking points from Fox News often? The top 1% of income earners actually pay about 22% of all taxes, according to the Tax Foundation, which studies these things. They stated that between 2000 and 2007, the top rate payers had an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than most tax payers because the these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends that are not subject to income taxes, but to other taxes that had rates lowered substantiallyby the Bush tax cuts.

  28. I checked my figures, and the top 1% had 22% of the earned income and approximately 60% of total gross income during the time period I stated and paid 28%, not 22% of all taxes. Sorry. But the figure on effective income tax rate is correct.

  29. beerBoy says:

    Q – What’s the difference between 28% and 90%?

    The former figure is accurate and the latter is just some number ij pulled out of the ethereal realm of his “reality”.

  30. dewilson says:

    It should also be noted that as G.W. Bush waged 2 wars ‘on credit’, he also reduced taxes for the rich, including capital gains and inheritance taxes. So while he drove up the debt he also ensured that the ‘haves and the have mores’ would not be paying back near their share, as that has quite successfully been shoved onto the backs of the average wage earner. This, in turn, shifts whatever diminishing wealth in the country even more towards a top heavy distribution. But that is just one more benefit of unfettered capitalism.

  31. larsman says:

    Ever dream of a say, 15 % tax rate across the board for every individual with no deductions or reasons to hide in the Caymans, no special ‘groups’ and no temporary time limits to generate institutional uncertainty?

  32. That sounds about as regressive as sales tax, larsman.

  33. iamjimbo says:

    What’s the difference between 28% and 90%?… Obama’s approval vs. disapproval??? Congress A. vs. Dis. ???? Heck, I’m on pins and needles (and unlimited unemployment) just tell us B….

  34. dewilson says:

    larsman – The rich folks all dream about a flat tax, as you propose. It means that they could shrug off even more of the tax burden onto the the average folks. Since you would also lose your mortgage deduction as well as other tax-dectuctible items, you might well exceed your current effective tax rate.

    Naturally, we should contine to reduce capital gains taxes and “death” taxes, so that the multi-billionaires can garner ever more wealth as yours is ebbed away in taxes, keeping their dynasties evergrowing. It sure worked under the British classist system, at least until the empire fell…

  35. iamjimbo says:

    Actually dewilson… it means everyone would have an equal investment based on their income. The rich would still pay more, but everyone would have a stake in it… except people who earn nothing.

  36. Actually, iammjimmbo, it means that more wealth would accumulate amongst fewer people. That accumulation of wealth would further stagnate our economy. (but we’ve had this conversation before, haven’t we?)

    Remember when our economy was booming? What were the tax rates like, then?

    It may not seem fair and equitable to you that higher incomes should pay at a higher rate, but with a flat tax the rich would most certainly get richer and the poor would certainly get poorer and the middle class would ultimately go the way of the buggy whip.

    Those at the lower end of the income scale have little if any disposable income, while those at the upper end have disposable income to burn.

    Or, to put it another way, a flat tax would be a huge burden to low income households while it would be peanuts to the wealthy.

    And, there are wealthy amongst us who agree and have expressed these same sentiments.

  37. Sumner401 says:

    Ever dream of a say, 15 % tax rate across the board for every individual with no deductions….

    Isn’t it disturbing how brainwashing works so well in some?

  38. iamjimbo says:

    I do remember… then Harry Nancy took the reigns and that’s why we are where we are now.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0