KK takes on Prop 8 reversal ..

This is part of KK's column located here :

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/100657694.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

"Did you know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are bigots? Ditto for the justices of New York's, Maryland's and Washington's highest state courts. And there are at least 7 million bigots in California alone, along with legions more across the country.

Their strange and aberrant delusion? They believe -- or say it's reasonable to believe -- that traditional marriage is a social good that serves our nation well.

So says federal Judge Vaughn Walker, who recently overturned Proposition 8 -- passed by California voters in 2008 to enshrine one man/one woman marriage in their state's constitution. Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under the U.S. constitution. Only "prejudice," "fear" and "misinformation," he said, can explain Californians' support for it.

Anyone who wonders why Americans are up in arms over the arrogance of our quasi-totalitarians in black robes -- activist judges who want to rule your life -- should flip through Walker's opinion.

Arrogance and disdain for those who dare to disagree drip from every page:

So what if male/female marriage has been the core institution in virtually every human society? Walker dictates that male/female differences shall henceforth be eradicated from marriage. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage," he ruled, rejecting other views as "antiquated" and "discredited."

And the universal belief that kids do best with both a mom and a dad? That one goes in the garbage can, too. It's "beyond any doubt" that "parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," he instructs us.

Walker's 136-page opinion is rife with contempt for American citizens, who are too ignorant and easily led to have a voice in defining marriage. As a result, the issue of marriage is "beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives," Walker tells us. In other words, get in line and shut up.

Walker's central finding is that there is no conceivable rational argument for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Only "a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples" can account for it, he says.

Yet marriage is rooted in biology -- a fact that Walker can't wish away. Marriage is a male/female institution because only sex between men and women produces children. To survive and flourish, a society must channel male/female erotic desires into responsible procreation. Marriage binds parents -- especially fathers -- to their offspring, assuring that children will have both parents' love, guidance and economic support.

The two sexes also bring different and complementary strengths to parenting. Mothers, for example, are more attuned than fathers to the cries, gestures and language of babies, toddlers and teens -- and so are better at nurturing children physically and emotionally. (The hormone oxytocin may play an important role here.) Fathers, on the other hand, are particularly good at ensuring safety and encouraging children to shoulder challenging tasks. Men's size and strength provide an advantage in discipline, particularly with boys.

Judge Walker assures us that radically redefining marriage would have no adverse social consequences. Yet it would likely erode vital social norms, including the expectation that men should take responsibility for children they beget. America already has a 40 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate, and can ill afford this. Another norm at risk is marital fidelity. A recent groundbreaking study found that "about 50 percent" of gay male couples in the San Francisco Bay Area "have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners," according to the New York Times. "With straight people, it's called affairs or cheating, but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations," researcher Colleen Hoff told the Times.

Despite such facts, Walker insists that benighted, private "moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

Morality and religion are deeply intertwined with our ideas of justice. Is Walker suggesting that because the modern civil-rights movement was religiously motivated, we should reject the laws that it inspired?

In fact, Walker may have his own private reasons for overturning Prop 8. He is "openly gay" and "attends bar functions with a companion, a physician," the Los Angeles Times reported last month. If Walker is in a stable gay relationship, he has a personal interest in gay marriage that may legally disqualify him from ruling on Prop 8.

Walker's failure to disclose his relationship requires that his opinion be vacated and a new trial be held before a different judge, Chapman University law professor John Eastman wrote last week.

Walker's attempt to smuggle in his own, self-interested version of morality may be the real reason for his arrogant..."