Homosexual Federal Judge Finds Right to Homosexual “Marriage” in U.S. Constitution

Jack S. writes:

I was surprised to find out that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. This was apparently first reported on an sfgate.com blog on February 7, 2010, but has successfully been kept out of all major news reports. The news embargo on this information is so widespread that you have to look to English language Indian websites to find the obvious headline “Gay Judge Overturns Gay Marriage Ban,” or here, in India Times.

Thirty years ago the NY Post would have had a field day with a headline like that.

This reminds me of the years long effort to keep Obama’s middle name from being uttered or written in the MSM. Once the cat was out of the bag the Left switched from ignoring Obama’s Muslim heritage to crying racism whenever this fact was mentioned. Even in the Internet age where so much information is a few keystrokes away it’s shocking the power that the Left has to mold information that reaches people.

LA replies:

Someone said in an online discussion that it was no more biased to have a homosexual judge decide on homosexual “marriage” than to have a heterosexual judge decide, since both would be biased. This misses the obvious point that 99 percent of homosexuals support homosexual marriage, many of them fanatically, while the issue is much closer to a 50-50 split among heterosexuals. It’s unbelievable that an open homosexual was chosen to preside over this case.

- end of initial entry -

Paul K. writes:

I also found it interesting, though generally unreported, that Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army Intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, was a homosexual activist who raged against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on his Facebook page, yet was allowed to retain his position. What a surprise that this bitter and unstable man should eventually betray his country!

August 7

James P. writes:

If Walker had an ounce of integrity, he would have recused himself from the case.

LA replies:

This verse from Bob Dylan’s “Most Likely You Go Your Way (and I’ll Go Mine)” seems relevant:

Well the judge
He holds a grudge
He’s gonna call on you.
But he’s badly built
And he walks on stilts
Watch out he don’t fall on you.

James P. writes:

A headline that proves yet again that the NYT lives in la-la-land:

Conservative Jurist, With Independent Streak

And get a load of what’s “conservative” about him—he favors the legalization of drugs. Say what???

An independent-minded conservative, he has come out publicly in favor of the legalization of drugs, and ruled in 1996 that the police used reasonable force when they pepper-sprayed anti-logging protesters.

The author of this article is manifestly deranged.

Sophia A. writes:

This is a good article about the decision:

I know you’ll disagree with the writer that there IS a case to be made for SSM. I do myself. That’s not really the point of the article—he’s right to say that Judge Walker’s decision should be read as a passionate defense of the right to SSM, and not as a tightly reasoned legal decision.

Unless the Supreme Court is hopelessly corrupt (a possibility), I cannot see this decision surviving juridical scrutiny.

Likely the decision will go back to the legislatures, where they will learn to word things more carefully

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 05, 2010 09:45 PM | Send