There really wasn’t any mystery on how this case was going to be decided. A federal judge, appointed by Obama with two last names – Arenda L. Wright Allen – was asked to rule on the constitutionality of Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
It wasn’t a matter of how she would rule. It was only a matter of when. And for those that picked Valentine’s Day in the office pool, you win the pot. Actually it was released on the 13th at 9:00 PM on a day when snow shut down the rest of the state. Maximum impact on an activist opinion? Check.
So just how qualified is this far left Obama appointee?
As you might expect, not very. I am sure she has heard of the Constitution of the United States, but I don’t think she has actually read it.
See if you can spot the error in the text of the ruling she released:
Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us.
Now get out your pocket Constitution and find those words!
You won’t, so you can stop looking. But the truth is, if you had a copy of the Constitution in your pocket you already knew that those words came from the Declaration of Independence.
N0w I don’t know about you, but any federal judge that can’t even tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence has zero credibility in my book to judge what is or is not Constitutional. The magnitude of that error cannot be overstated.
This lady is unqualified to be a judge, let alone rule on the Constitutionality of any argument.
Over one million Virginians voted to amend our state Constitution with the words of the Marriage Amendment”. And one legal illiterate was given the ability to strike down the will of the people.
And how funny it is that those who are now cheering this ruling were convinced that Al Gore should have been president because “the people have spoken”. Could you imagine the outcry in the press if the Supreme Court ruling back then had confused the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
And the larger problem is that the judge didn’t even judge this case on the Constitutionality, but rather on emotion.
Rita Dunaway, an outstanding Attorney has a brilliant analysis of the technical details of this case. And I encourage you to read her entire analysis here. (It is not very long. It only took her a few paragraphs to dismantle this ruling.)
I will offer some of the best lines from Dunaway’s post:
I knew the opinion would be a doozy before I even got to its substance. Excerpted at the very beginning—before the “Introduction” even—was this quote from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in Loving v. Virginia (in which the Supreme Court struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage):
“The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.”
This quote (part of a slightly longer excerpt) was troubling to me for two reasons. First, I have read hundreds—maybe thousands—of court opinions, and I have never seen one begin with a layperson’s analysis of fundamental rights. Second, the quote was a clear indication that the federal judge was in tune with this mushy, over-simplified construct of civil marriage being all about “me and the person I love.”
So the judge was using the words and thoughts of someone that had never been to law school as the cornerstone of her decision. What do you expect from an activist Obama appointee?
Listening to some people talk, one would think that Virginia law actually forbade a homosexual person to marry. Of course, it doesn’t. But it also doesn’t guarantee to anyone a right to “marry the person he or she loves.” What if the person I love doesn’t want to marry me; is already married; is 11 years old; is my brother; is actual three persons, or is a cat? While I might prefer to marry my first cousin, I will have to settle for someone else. In short, if I want to qualify for the benefits that flow from a government-recognized marriage, I have to make a selection that qualifies. The State—as the entity conferring benefits—gets to decide which type of familial relationships to incentivize based upon its assessment of their benefits to society.
And if this ruling is not overturned, anyone will be able to marry anyone or anything. Want to avoid the “death tax”? Simply marry your parent. Depending on the size of the tax, it could overcome the “ick” factor. And prevent the government from taxing estates – and farms. And if the state has no right to set boundaries, why not simply marry your own children at birth? How many 6 year olds are ready for marriage? The state has no right or obligation to say.
Call me far fetched. But you will eat those words. I promise. This ruling opens more doors than we can even imagine. And most of them are not good doors.
Again, read the full analysis.
And to those that say homosexual couples only want the same thing as heterosexual couples, that is untrue. They already enjoy the same marriage privilege. What they want is special rights. Or at least separate but equal. Homosexuals already enjoy equal protection. They seek additional protection that does not exist.
And so now, those of us that believe in the Bible and what the Word of God has to say about homosexuality again see our Freedom of Religion rights trampled by some new rights imagined by an out of control and unqualified judge. We will be forced to accept this abomination as if our Constitutional rights were somehow superseded by gay rights.
Christians are being discriminated against in the name of the Constitution.
A far better idea would be to get the government completely out of sanctioning marriage and let the Church be the entity to deal with marriages. The state could then preside over a personal merger for those desiring legal “protections” and instead of a divorce, one could merely equitably dissolve the partnership. And then seek an annulment from your church. But the fact is, most proponents of gay marriage are less about the actual marriage and more about the destruction of a religious belief that they do not like. But this is what happens when government tries to usurp religion. Nobody wins.
Fortunately, this Constitutional brain-trust of a judge stayed the opinion pending appeal.